CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2025) 03 UK CK 0902

Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., & Others vs Vijay Bhatt & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 21 March 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J · Ashish Naithani, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Special Appeal No. 400 Of 2015

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 377 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.12.2014 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (S/ S) No.972 of 2010. The operative portion of the impugned judgment is extracted below: -

“Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the Tourism cadre, merely he has been discharging his duty in the Ministerial cadre or any other cadre would not take away his rights which will always remains in the Tourism cadre. His seniority will be calculated qua members of the Tourism cadre alone. The private respondents may be actually senior to him, but they are members of a different cadre, therefore, they cannot be shown to be senior to the petitioner in the Tourism cadre for the simple reason that they are members of the Ministerial cadre.

This being the situation, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.06.2010 passed by the Board of Directors is hereby set aside.

2.

It is not in dispute that respondent was appointed as Catering In-charge in tourism cadre in a Government company known as “Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam” in the year 1994. Respondent was asked to discharge duties as Clerk, which he did, however, he continued to be member of tourism cadre. Subsequently by an order dated 26.06.2010 seniority of the respondent was fixed in ministerial cadre, which was challenged by respondent in a writ petition. Learned Single Judge has set aside the said order and held that since he was appointed in tourism cadre, and was merely performing duties in the ministerial cadre, therefore, he cannot be treated as an employee of ministerial cadre, and he will continue to be an employee of tourism cadre.

3.

We concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Respondent had no control over the decision taken by his employer. Since he was asked to discharge duties in ministerial cadre, and he com plied with the direction issued by his superior authority, therefore, merely because he rendered service as Clerk, he will not become member of the ministerial cadre and he will continue to be member of tourism cadre, if there is a separate tourism cadre.

4.

With the aforesaid observation, the Special Appeal is disposed of.