Vinay Pant vs State of Uttarakhand and others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral)

Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“1) A Writ, Order in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records of the case and setting aside the impugned orders dated 13-4-2018 (Annexure

1) and 1-5-2018 (Annexure 2)

2) A writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue working as Assistant Engineer in

the office of Respondent no. 5.â€​

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer in the office of the 5th respondent

through the office of the 4th respondent vide appointment letter dated 14.06.2010. Petitioner submitted his joining on 21.06.2010. Uttarakhand Jal

Sansthan, Chief General Manager of which has been arrayed as the second respondent, sought extension of the services of the petitioner from

01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 or till the regularly selected candidate from Public Service Commission joins. Petitioner continued his work till 31.03.2012.

The services of the petitioner were discontinued, although other similarly situated persons were permitted to continue and there was a requirement of

Assistant Engineers in the Department. The discontinuance is dubbed as discriminatory. Suffice it to say that on 31.05.2017, Jal Sansthan reappointed

the petitioner in the office of the fifth respondent. Petitioner submitted his joining on 08.06.2017. He was assigned duties on 15.06.2017. By order

dated 13.04.2018 issued by UPNL, through whom the petitioner had been appointed in Jal Sansthan, sponsorship of the petitioner was withdrawn

without any rhyme or reason. Pursuant to the same, the fifth respondent (Executive Engineer of the Jal Sansthan) discontinued the services of the

petitioner. Challenging the aforesaid two documents, the petitioner is before us. Petitioner also seeks a mandamus to permit him to continue as

Assistant Engineer.

3). We have heard Mr. Chetan Joshi, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner. We also heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5, besides Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5 and besides Mrs. Prabha

Naithani, learned Brief Holder on behalf of the first respondent.

4). When the matter was taken up, we directed Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of UPNL to get definite instructions in the

matter and the matter was listed in the post-lunch session. When the case was taken up in the post-lunch session, Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel

appearing for UPNL submitted that on 26.06.2018, UPNL has passed an order deciding to cancel the order dated 13.04.2018. According to him, order

of cancellation has been passed on the basis that the petitioner had not produced certain documents, which were subsequently produced.

In the light of the above development, we would think that the writ petition is to be disposed of by directing the second respondent or the competent

Authority in the Jal Sansthan to take a decision in the matter within a time limit (According to Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, the decision would be subject to

the approval of the Government). The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of as follows:

The second respondent or the competent Authority in the Jal Sansthan will take a decision on the basis of the Communication dated 26.06.2018, which

has been addressed to the Secretary Administration, as per which the order dated 13.04.2018 issued by UPNL has been cancelled and the services of

the petitioner have been recommended to be continued. A decision will be taken on the same within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment, as per law.

Let certified copy of this order be issued today itself.