Devendra Singh Nauliya vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

Brief facts of the present case are that while the petitioner was in services of the respondent, he had preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1191 of 2012, Devendra Singh Noliya Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, with the following reliefs:-

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to recon the seniority of the petitioner since 1983 for all purposes and to give all consequential benefits.

ii) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

iii) Award cost of the petition."

In fact, if the reliefs sought for in the said writ petition is taken into consideration, it was involving exclusively the question of reckoning the seniority of the petitioner as claimed since 1983. The writ petition is said to have been disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 06.03.2018, whereby the respondents were simpliciter directed to decide the representation of the petitioner.

In fact, if the said decision dated 06.03.2018, itself is taken into consideration, and the consequential decision taken thereof on 21.06.2018, which is now being impugned in the present writ petition i.e. the decision dated 21.06.2018, this Court is of the view that the said decision would be confined only to the actual issue, which was raised by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition i.e. limited to the determination of his seniority w.e.f. 1983. It was altogether a different subject matter, which was under consideration in the Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1991 of 2012, which was decided on 21.06.2018.

Apart from the fact that the writ petition suffers from unexplained laches, as its the order dated 21.06.2018, which is now being sought to be put to challenge by preferring the present writ petition only on 25.10.2021, projecting as if the denial to determine the seniority of the petitioner as claimed by him in the earlier writ petition w.e.f. 1983, would be having a bearing on the determination of gratuity and accordingly, the relief has been modulated by the petitioner to re-compute and release the gratuity of the petitioner under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

In fact, both the writ petitions and the reliefs claimed therein are divergent to one another and under the garb of giving a belated challenge to the impugned order of 21.06.2018, which I have already observed, that it was related to the determination of an issue of seniority, it has got no nexus to the relief too and even if at all it had any bearing, then the petitioner ought to have approached the writ Court at an appropriate time while giving a challenge to the order dated 21.06.2018.

Having not done so, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the writ petition; in fact, the modulation of relief, as if the earlier decision of the writ petition had a direct nexus about the impact on the determination of his retiral benefits. I am not inclined to interfere in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, after the conclusion of the judgment had made reference to the pleading raised in para 26 of the present writ petition with regard to the principles, which has been enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, and particularly the reference has been made to paras 14, 15 and 16 of the said judgment, which contemplates that the entire period of services is to be reckoned and taken into consideration for the purposes of determination of the retiral benefits including the gratuity.

Since for the reasons already given above, that under the garb of a challenge of an order pertaining to the issue of determination of seniority w.e.f. 1983, in the backdrop of there being a factual difference of an issue involved in the earlier writ petition, which is under consideration now in this writ petition, the said judgment will not be applicable in the circumstances of the present case. Hence, this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner from this perspective too is not accepted by this Court.

Thus the writ petition lacks merits, the same is accordingly dismissed.