Devi Lal Sah vs The State of Uttarakhand

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—We think that this is a suitable matter, where an appropriate direction should be issued upon the State Government to appropriately train its officers, and specially those of I.A.S. cadre, periodically at its institute known as A.T.I. since they are functioning in a manner, which is absolutely reprehensible. In this case, Dr. Uma Kant Panwar, while holding charge of Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, asked a retired government employee to discharge government functions. While doing so, he felt that Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam is his personal property and, accordingly, he can engage anyone to discharge duties pertaining to the said Nigam. We think the Government must send this gentleman, Dr. Uma Kant Panwar, to A.T.I. for refresher training and, in particular, to teach him what is the limit of his authority. The Government is directed to report back to this Court in six months'' time by filing an affidavit in connection with this writ petition that Dr. Uma Kant Panwar has been appropriately trained at A.T.I.

It appears that in 1989, when the writ Petitioner was working with the predecessor in interest of Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam, he was appointed as Officer on Special Duty to look after Yartra Prashasan Sangathan. On 31st October 2008, Petitioner retired from Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam. It appears that on or about 12th February 2009, Petitioner made a representation before Dr. Uma Kant Panwar to the effect that since 1989 he is Officer on Special Duty in relation to Yatra Prashasan Sangthan in addition to his other duties and is still discharging such duties. On 12th February 2009, on the said representation, the said Dr. Uma Kant Panwar made an endorsement to the effect that the time of forthcoming Yatra is close and, accordingly, Petitioner will continue to work as in the past till further order. Since the Petitioner has worked on the basis of the said endorsement, the present writ petition has been filed seeking salaries and other remunerations. We are granting specific liberty to the Petitioner to claim and recover such salary and other remuneration from Dr. Uma Kant Panwar.

It has been stated that subsequent to 12th February 2009, Dr. Uma Kant Panwar, by his letter dated 18th August 2009 approached the Principal Secretary attached to the office of the Chief Minister requesting grant of sanction to the continuation of Petitioner in connection with the affairs of Yatra Prashasan Sangthan. As the said letter was not even worth the waste paper box, in law, the Principal Secretary attached to the office of the Chief Minister did not even bother to look into the same. That appears to be another grievance in the writ petition. We have already stated above that Dr. Uma Kant Panwar could act in the manner he acted only because he felt, and we presume he still feels, that Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam belongs to him and it is part of his Jagir. The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner as mentioned above and we expect that the Petitioner would take appropriate step to recover his salaries and other remunerations from Dr. Uma Kant Panwar.