Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 613 (UTT)

Nripendra Kumar Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-10-30

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondent-authorities that Shailesh Matiyani Rajya Puraskar (“the award”) should be conferred on him with all consequential benefits. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Government Inter College, Lohaghat on 07.01.1984. He has been continuously working with the Education Department. The State of Uttarakhand gives award every year to the deserving teachers. For the year 2018, a scheme was published by the respondent authorities on 03.06.2019, by which, the process for giving the award was to commence sometimes in the month of June/July 2019 and final recommendation from the Directorate was to be sent to the State Government on 20.08.2019. The petitioner applied for the award. He submitted all the required documents. It is the case of the petitioner that out of 95 marks he got 72 marks and he was first ranked in District Almora, but he was not given the award instead a candidate, who had obtained 65 marks was given the award. The petitioner was denied the award on the ground that he had already superannuated on 31.05.2020. The petitioner writes in the petition that in the similar situation this Court has awarded relief to the petitioner in the case of Ram Asrey Maurya vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2018 SCC OnLine Utt. 440 (Writ Petition (M/S) No.3083 of 2016). 4. State has filed counter affidavit. According to the State, the petitioner had already retired on 31.05.2020, he was on extension; therefore, his case was not considered for conferment of award. It is also stated in para 12 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent nos.2 and 3 that the judgment of this Court given in the judgment of Ram Asrey Maurya (supra) has been impugned by the State Government before the Supreme Court in SLP No.1865 of 2019. 5. During the course of hearing the petitioner also personally argued his case. 6. A similar petition has already been decided by this Court in the case of Ram Asrey Maurya (supra). 5. During the course of hearing the petitioner also personally argued his case. 6. A similar petition has already been decided by this Court in the case of Ram Asrey Maurya (supra). In that case also, a teacher was declined the award on the ground that he had superannuated, but the Court had observed that the delay in deciding the award was on the part of the State Government for which purpose a teacher may not be made to suffer. In para 11 and 12 of the Judgment in the case of Ram Asrey Maurya (supra), this Court observed as follows:- “11. The above condition of the respondent State is wholly misplaced inasmuch as according to the schedule given by the Government itself, all the formalities were to be completed by 18.8.2016 when the petitioner was in service. In any case, the award is to be given for the year 2015 and the last calendar date for the year 2015 is 31.12.2015 when the petitioner was already in service. Rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he superannuated from the service on 30.9.2016 is clearly wrong. 12. This Court would have sent the matter back to the Government for reconsideration but since the Government has taken a categorical stand that the candidature of the petitioner is not liable to be considered at all as he has reached the age of superannuation which is absolutely wrong and, since there is no other objection of the Government for not giving the award to the petitioner and since admittedly the petitioner had secured highest marks and his name was recommended by the District Level Committee and two other names recommended by the Committee have already been rejected on the various grounds, as they were not found suitable, this writ petition is hereby allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent authorities to forthwith give the award to the petitioner along with all consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the Secretary, Education.” 7. Special appeal preferred against Ram Asrey Maurya (supra) has already been rejected. Special appeal preferred against Ram Asrey Maurya (supra) has already been rejected. During the course of hearing today, it is revealed that, in fact, the SLP (Civil) No.1865 of 2019, the State of Uttarakhand and others vs. Ram Asrey Maurya has also been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 04.01.2022 and in SPA No.729 of 2018, the Division Bench of this Court, inter alia observed that:- “The action of the appellant-State not to give “Shailesh Matiyani Rajya Puraskar” to the petitioner for the year 2015 was arbitrary and unreasonable. It is in these circumstances, since the respondent 30.09.2016, the appellant-State was directed to give the award to the respondent forthwith. There is no illegality or perversity in the judgment dated 03.05.2018, rendered by learned Single Judge in WPMS No.3083 of 2016. Accordingly, there is no merit in this special appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP observed that:- “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not think that the petitioners have made out a case for interference with the impugned judgment by which the Division Bench has upheld the direction given by the learned Single Judge to give the award in question to the respondent/writ petitioner along with all consequential benefits. We would only clarify that in view of the admitted fact that the respondent had superannuated in the year 2016, there is no question of an extension of service by another two years in terms of what the respondent would have been entitled otherwise. However, the respondent would be entitled to get the award in question as also the cash prize and we see no reason to take a view different from that has been taken by both, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. As far as the costs of Rs.25,000/- is concerned, we would think that, in the circumstances, the petitioners should not be visited with costs. Subject to the aforesaid modification, the special leave petition will stand dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of. Puraskar and the cash prize in terms of the impugned judgment shall be given to the respondent within a period of two months from today.” 9. Subject to the aforesaid modification, the special leave petition will stand dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of. Puraskar and the cash prize in terms of the impugned judgment shall be given to the respondent within a period of two months from today.” 9. Learned Chief Standing Counsel would submit that petitioner may not be entitled to consequential relief because he has already been retired in the year 2020; he may not be entitled for extension of service, but he admits that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Asrey Maurya (supra), the petitioner is entitled to the award. 10. A similar controversy has already been decided in the case of Ram Asrey Maurya (supra). The matter is squarely covered by the judgment given by this Court in the case of Ram Asrey Maurya (supra) subject to the modification, as made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. 12. The petition is allowed. 13. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent authorities to forthwith give award to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.