Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 249 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Balraj Singh Negi

2024-04-10

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, RITU BAHRI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ritu Bahri, C.J. The State has come up in this bunch of appeals against the judgment dated 05.07.2018, passed by learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2684 of 2015, Balraj Singh Negi Vs State of Uttarakhand and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioner Balraj Singh Negi was allowed. 2. Before further discussion it is pertinent to mention here that various co-ordinate Benches of this Court have disposed of majority of writ petitions in terms of judgment dated 05.07.2018, rendered in the case of Balraj Singh Negi, as enumerated hereinabove, feeling aggrieved, the State has preferred these special appeals. 3. Since common question of law and facts are involved in this bunch of appeals, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment for the sake of brevity and convenience. 4. Appellants are the respondents in the writ petitions. The writ petitioners are persons, who were working in various Industrial Training Institutes established under the State. Originally, they were working as Prashikshan Mitras. Subsequently, it is their case that they have been confirmed / appointed by regular selection. The issue, which is raised in the writ petitions, appears to be that they are denied continuation of service from the date they got appointment as Prashikshan Mitras till regularization of their services / appointment by regular selection. Feeling aggrieved, they filed separate writ petitions, which have led to the present bunch of appeals before this Court. Special Appeal No. 940 of 2018 shall be treated as a leading case for the sake of brevity. 5. Brief facts of the case are that respondent-writ petitioner Balraj Singh Negi was appointed as Prashikshan Mitra vide order dated 07.03.2002 on the basis of his qualification against the post of Instructor. Subsequently, an advertisement was issued by the appellants on 21.02.2010 for filling up the post of Instructor, I.T.I. Motor Mechanic. After participating in the selection process, the respondent-writ petitioner was found suitable and got appointed on said post, on 17.12.2010. The similarly situated persons, who were appointed as Prashikshan Mitras were regularized in the year 2013-2014. Respondent-writ petitioner, though was selected on 21.02.2010, but got appointment on 17.12.2014. 6. After participating in the selection process, the respondent-writ petitioner was found suitable and got appointed on said post, on 17.12.2010. The similarly situated persons, who were appointed as Prashikshan Mitras were regularized in the year 2013-2014. Respondent-writ petitioner, though was selected on 21.02.2010, but got appointment on 17.12.2014. 6. The only question for consideration before the learned Single Judge was whether the continuous service rendered by the respondent-writ petitioner from 07.03.2002 till his appointment as Instructor, I.T.I. Motor Mechanic on 17.12.2014, has to be counted for pensionary purposes by the appellant State, or not? The writ petition was allowed and a direction was given to the State to count the services rendered by the respondent-writ petitioner w.e.f. 07.03.2002 till his appointment as Instructor, I.T.I. Motor Mechanic on 17.12.2014 for all intents and purposes keeping in view the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 2018 SC 233 , Sheo Narain Nagar & others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others. 7. The main ground taken by counsel for the State in the present appeal is that once the respondent-writ petitioner was appointed on regular basis on 17.12.2014, he could not be given any benefit of the past services, and reliance of the learned Single Judge on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sheo Narain Nagar’s case (supra) is on different facts, and respondent cannot get the benefit of said judgment because in that case the employee had been appointed in the year 1993, and he was given temporary status on 02.10.2002, and after the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs Uma Devi & others, 2006 (4) SCC 01, he had completed 10 years of service on the date when he was given temporary status, i.e., 02.10.2002, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had given directions that his services be regularized w.e.f. 02.10.2002 with all consequential benefits and arrears of salary. 8. The facts of the present case are that the respondent-writ petitioner was given regular appointment in 2014 after participating in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.02.2010, and he cannot claim parity of benefit of regularization at par with other persons, who were regularized in the year 2013-2014. It is the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment which has to be applied. The respondent-writ petitioner in the present case is claiming parity. It is the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment which has to be applied. The respondent-writ petitioner in the present case is claiming parity. He was appointed on 07.03.2002, and as per the regularization policy, the persons who were appointed along with him were regularized in the year 2013-2014, and pursuant to the selection made in the year 2010, he was given appointment on 17.12.2014. Even if he was given appointment on 17.12.2014, he has been working continuously from 07.03.2002 till 17.12.2014 after regular selection also on 21.02.2010. Hence, the services rendered by the respondent-writ petitioner from 07.03.2002 till 17.12.2014 cannot be taken away for the purpose of consequential benefits. Had the respondent-writ petitioner been appointed in 2010, he had completed only 10 years after his initial appointment, and he cannot claim benefit of the past services. Since he was regularized on 17.12.2014, the benefit of past service has to be given and the writ petition has been rightly allowed. However, the benefit which the respondent-writ petitioner has to be given is only with respect to counting the past services for fixation of pension only. 9. Keeping in view the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department and others Vs Narendra Kumar Tripathi, (2015) 11 SCC 80 , as well as in recently pronounced judgment in the case of Rashi Mani Mishra and others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 387, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the seniority of a person has to be counted from the date of substantive appointment. His ad hoc appointment prior to the date of substantive appointment cannot be made ground to give him benefit of seniority. The only benefit which a person can take is that his services from ad hoc before he was substantially appointed or regularized will be counted for the benefit of pension. 10. The past services rendered by a contractual employee had to be taken into account for the purpose of pension only. The only benefit which a person can take is that his services from ad hoc before he was substantially appointed or regularized will be counted for the benefit of pension. 10. The past services rendered by a contractual employee had to be taken into account for the purpose of pension only. This proposition has already been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs Sheela Devi, SLP (C) No. 10399 of 2020, decided on 07.08.2023, while upholding the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court relying upon Rule 17(2) of CCS Pension Rules holding that Rule 17 was engrafted essentially to cater to the eventuality where the employees working on contract basis were regularized on a later stage. It is only for the purpose of pension that the past services as contractual employee is to be taken into account. 11. Similar view has also been taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Som Nath and others Vs State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 1432 of 2012, along with batch of writ petitions, decided on 23.01.2013, holding that the entire daily wage service of an employee from 1988 till the date of his regularization is to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. 12. In view of the aforesaid, impugned judgment dated 05.07.2018, rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2684 of 2015, Balraj Singh Negi Vs State of Uttarakhand and others, is modified only with respect to the consequential benefit. The benefit of service rendered by the respondent-writ petitioner Balraj Singh Negi prior to his regular appointment, i.e., 17.12.2014 will be counted only for the purpose of pension. The said benefit will also be applicable in the cases of other respondents-writ petitioners in this bunch of appeals for the purpose of pension only. 13. With the modification as above, all the special appeals stands disposed of.