Pratap Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and others

ALOK SINGH, J.

Brief facts of the present case are that petitioner was engaged as daily wager on 01.08.1988 in Irrigation Department. Respondent Department

retrenched the service of the petitioner with effect from 31.03.1992. Petitioner raised industrial dispute. Labour Court passed award on 22.10.1999 in

favour of petitioner. Respondent Department filed writ petition against the said award. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated

29.09.2005. Thereafter, respondent Department compelled the petitioner to enter into a compromise. As per this compromise, petitioner had waived

off his back wages and costs of case, however, reinstated in service protecting his seniority. Respondent no. 1 vide order dated 12.04.2006 reinstated

the petitioner in service. Vide order dated 26.04.2006, respondent no.4 granted the seniority to the petitioner with effect from November, 1988.

Petitioner’s service was regularized on 31.12.2013 ignoring his seniority with effect from 1988. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner again approached this

Court by way of filing WPSS No. 2365 of 2016. This Court vide order dated 17.12.2016 directed the respondent to implement letter dated 26.04.2006

by giving him benefit of seniority with effect from 1.11.1988 with all consequential benefits. In compliance of Court’s order, respondent passed

order dated 17.05.2017, which is under challenge before this Court.

Heard Mr. Amar Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. V.D. Bisen, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents.

In paragraph 6(a) of the impugned order, respondent no. 4 stated that as per letter dated 05.10.2006, petitioner’s name finds place at serial no.

27A in the seniority list of daily wagers whereas as per letter dated 16.05.2017, his name finds place in the seniority list at serial no. 1130.

Respondents have not made it clear as to how name of petitioner go so much down in the seniority list. Despite repeated orders of this Court,

respondents had not complied with the orders in true spirit.

Petitioner has categorically stated in paragraphs 19 and 23 that services of the persons, who were engaged in 1988, had been regularized in 2006

but petitioner’s service has been regularized in December, 2013. Some of the similarly situated persons like Jamuna Prasad, Ashok Kumar,

Virendra and Kashi Ram, who were appointed along with petitioner, were appointed along with petitioner were promoted in 1997, 2000, 2003 and 2004

but petitioner has been promoted w.e.f. 05.08.2005.

Respondents have not specifically denied the contentions of the petitioner. Respondents instead of regularizing the services of the petitioner on the

post of Beldar, have deliberately regularized the service of the petitioner on the post of Runner with effect from 25.09.2013.

In view of the above, writ petition is allowed. Respondent no. 1 is directed to regularize the service of the petitioner with effect from the date, when

services of persons, who were engaged along with petitioner in 1988, had been regularized and to grant promotion with effect from the date when

person who were engaged along with petitioner in 1988, had been promoted. All the exercise shall be done by respondent no. 1 within two months

from today.