Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 428 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Bhagwan Singh Kainthura

2024-06-20

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, RITU BAHRI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ritu Bahri, C.J. The present writ petition has been filed by the State / petitioners seeking direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the judgment dated 29.11.2022, passed by the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun, in claim petition No. 27/DB/2022, Bhagwan Singh Kaintura and others Vs State of Uttarakhand and others. 2. As per the facts given in the judgment of the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) the petitioners (respondents herein) were employees of different departments in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh. When the State of Uttarakhand came into existence on 09.11.2000, there was acute shortage of staff in the Secretariat. Employees of different departments and Corporations were attached to the Secretariat to perform various duties. In the year 2002, the Merger Rules came into being, and as per Rule 4(2) of these rules, such employees i.e. Personal Assistant, Junior Group Assistant, Assistant Accountant, Typist, Assistant Helper, who had been transferred in Secretariat from their respective departments were eligible for merger in the Secretariat. At the same time, all such employees who had not been transferred, but are working in Secretariat, were also eligible for merger, but from the date of their substantive regular appointment in their respective departments. On 10.03.2008, the service-transfer of 67 Group ‘C’ employees in the Secretariat, who were attached to the Secretariat were made eligible for merger from the date of their service-transfer, i.e., 10.03.2008, and all the 67 employees got their seniority from the date of their service-transfer. These 67 service-employees were regular employees in their respective departments. 3. The petitioners (respondents herein) had been working from 2002-2014, and their salaries were paid by their respective Departments and Corporations, and not by the Secretariat. The Annual Confidential Reports were recorded by the officers of the Secretariat under whom the petitioners were working. 4. Finally, the petitioners (respondents herein) were regularized in their respective departments on 30.10.2013, 01.02.2010, 08.05.2012, 02.11.2012, 17.04.2012 and 20.03.2012 under the Regularization Rules, 2011. 5. After their regularization, the petitioners (respondents herein) made representations for merger to the Hon’ble Chief Minister as per the Merger Rules of 2002. Subsequently, an order was passed on 03.01.2017 by the Secretary, Secretariat Administration Department (SAD). In December 2016, the Secretary (SAD) initiated the process of merger / service-transfer of the petitioners. 5. After their regularization, the petitioners (respondents herein) made representations for merger to the Hon’ble Chief Minister as per the Merger Rules of 2002. Subsequently, an order was passed on 03.01.2017 by the Secretary, Secretariat Administration Department (SAD). In December 2016, the Secretary (SAD) initiated the process of merger / service-transfer of the petitioners. As per the order dated 03.01.2017 (Annexure-16 to the claim petition), the case of the petitioners was recommended for merger / service-transfer on 23.08.2017 (Annexure-18 to the claim petition). Thereafter, as per directions dated 26.12.2018 of the Cabinet, a committee was constituted for merger of the petitioners, and some recommendations were made for merger on 26.03.2019 (Annexure-19 to the claim petition). On 18.09.2019, Government Order for merger of the petitioners’ services in Secretariat was issued. 6. Petitioners (respondents herein) being aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2019 made representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister to change their date of merger from 18.09.2019 to the date of their regularization. However, their representation was rejected and, thereafter, they filed their claim petition before the Tribunal. 7. After going through the detailed documents filed by the respondents (petitioners herein), the Tribunal examined all the documents filed by them. The Tribunal held that petitioners (respondents herein) were employees of different departments in State of Uttar Pradesh, and after formation of the State of Uttarakhand on 09.11.2000, these employees were attached to the Secretariat to perform various duties. Some employees were appointed on ad hoc basis in the year 2000, and they were regularized in 2014 under the Regularization Rules 2013, and were given the benefit of seniority from the date of their regularization. The petitioners claim the same benefit for regular appointment and seniority. The Tribunal also examined the case of 67 employees, who had been substantially appointed in their parent departments, and they were given the benefit of merger from the dates they stood transferred to the Secretariat. The Tribunal, thereafter, observed that when the petitioners were regularized under 2011 Regularization Rules, they became eligible for merger in the Secretariat under Rule 4(1) of the Merger Rules 2002. The Tribunal, thereafter, observed that when the petitioners were regularized under 2011 Regularization Rules, they became eligible for merger in the Secretariat under Rule 4(1) of the Merger Rules 2002. Their claim was allowed by the Tribunal by observing that once the Cabinet had taken a decision in the meeting held on 02.08.2019 (copy Annexure-C.A. 6 to the counter-affidavit to the claim petition) then merger would be effected from the said date and, in fact, they had been working in the Secretariat on ad hoc temporary basis since 2006, and were regularized under the 2013 Regularization policy, they cannot be denied the benefit of seniority / promotion because of the approach of the respondent authorities. Hence, the order dated 18.09.2019 was modified, and a direction was given to the respondents (petitioners herein) to modify the order of merger dated 18.09.2019 from the date of regularization of the petitioners (respondents herein) as the date of merger. 8. After going through the order, and hearing learned counsel for the petitioners / State, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed especially keeping in view the fact that once the respondents have been regularized as per the Regularization Rules, 2011 (Annexure-8 to the claim petition) in the respective departments on 30.10.2013, 01.02.2010, 08.05.2012, 02.11.2012, 17.04.2012 and 20.03.2012, they cannot be denied the benefit of merger and seniority from the date they stood regularized, as the benefit of seniority has been extended to other 67 employees, who were sent on transfer basis to the Secretariat. Apart from that, the department has also given benefit of merger to other employees taking their date of transfer as date of merger in the Secretariat. Benefit of seniority has been given to them from the date of regularization before transfer. Hence, the respondents in the present case have rightly been given benefit of merger from the date of their regularization. The benefit of regularization has been given taking into account the fact that the respondents in the present case kept on working in the Secretariat from 2002 to 2014, and once they have been regularized as per the 2011 Regularization policy, as per dates mentioned above, they have a right to claim benefit of seniority and merger from the date of their regularization, and they cannot be given the date of merger as 18.09.2019. 9. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are unable to take a view contrary to what was taken by the learned Tribunal. Thus, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.