Gopal Singh Karki vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 01.08.2019 and other consequential orders of re-fixation of pay of the petitioners and recovery orders dated 01.08.2019 in so far as it relates to the petitioners; and for a mandamus directing the respondents to release the amount recovered from the petitioners by recovery orders dated 01.05.2019 and 04.05.2019.

The petitioners herein were all extended the benefits of ACP earlier. When these amounts were sought to be recovered from them, in violation of the rules of natural justice, i.e. without putting them on notice and without giving them an opportunity of being heard, they invoked the jurisdiction of this Court; and a Division Bench of this Court, by its order in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 31 of 2018, set aside the earlier orders for violation of the principles of natural justice, permitted the petitioners to submit their reply to the show cause notice within three weeks, and directed the respondents to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the petitioners' representation. Till reasoned orders were passed, on the petitioners' representation, the interim orders passed by this Court earlier was directed to continue to remain in force. It was made clear that, in case the petitioners failed to submit their reply to the show cause notice within two weeks from the date of the order, it was open to the respondents to proceed and take action in accordance with law, both for reduction of the pay scales of the petitioners and for recovery of the excess amount, if any, paid to them earlier. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted an elaborate reply by their letter dated 15.07.2019, a detailed order was passed on 01.08.2019 by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (HoFF) rejecting the petitioners' contention, and the excess money paid was directed to be recovered from them. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition.

The primary submission of Sri A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, is that the impugned order dated 01.08.2019 was passed, relying on an earlier order passed by the Tribunal, holding that the benefits of ACP were not available to promotional posts to be filled up on the basis of selection, and on the basis of merit and ability; and this conclusion of the respondents is contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court in several judgments.

When we asked learned Senior Counsel as to why the petitioners cannot approach the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, constituted under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, learned Senior Counsel would submit that, since this Court had earlier entertained the writ petition, and had restrained the respondents from recovering the amount till the rules of natural justice were complied with, the petitioners should not now be relegated to avail the remedy of approaching the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, more so as the respondents had not dealt with all the submissions raised, by the petitioners, in their reply to the show cause notice.

It is not even urged, on behalf of the petitioners by the learned Senior Counsel, that the contentions now put forth before us cannot be examined by the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal. While it is, no doubt, true that we had earlier entertained the writ petition, and had set aside the order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, that does not mean that the petitioners are entitled, as of right, to approach this Court subsequently in each and every case, instead of availing the statutory remedy provided to them, of approaching the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.

Sri A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would submit that several employees have retired from service, and in the light of the impugned order, their entire retiral benefits have been stopped and they are left in penury. He would request this Court to continue the interim order passed earlier, till the petitioners approach the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal.

While we cannot brush aside the above submissions as without merit, it would be wholly inappropriate for us to pass any interim order till the petitioners invoke the jurisdiction of the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, as we have chosen not to entertain the writ petition, and have, instead, relegated the petitioners to avail the remedy of approaching the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal.

Since the order may well have a huge impact on employees, who have retired from service and a large amount is said to be in the process of being recovered or withheld from the retiral benefits, we are satisfied that the matter needs expeditious hearing. Suffice it, in such circumstances, to request the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, in case their jurisdiction is invoked by the petitioners herein, to hear and decide the OA at the earliest, preferably within six months from the date of filing of the OA.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.