AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner was initially engaged as Fourth Class employee on 03.01.1989 at Regional Office, Uttarakhand Development Department, Almora in the
erstwhile State of U.P.. On completion 5 years of service and creation of regular posts, petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar on officiating basis on
28.10.1996. On creation of State of Uttarakhand, various employees from concerned Department have been attached to the Secretariat for smooth
functioning of the Department. Petitioner was appointed /absorbed in the Uttarakhand Secretariat on 20.07.2002 on the Class IV post i.e. Peon as per
the Uttaranchal Secretariat Personal Assistant, UDA, Assistant Accountant, Typist, Anusevak Absorption Rules, 2002. In the seniority list of Peon,
name of petitioner finds place at serial no. 121.Â
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure No. 3 is appointment order dated 28.10.1996 issued by Principal Secretary, Uttarkhand
Development Department, Mini Secretariat, Dehradun. Placing reliance on the said Annexure he submits that since this letter was issued from Mini
Secretariat, therefore, petitioner was employee of Secretariat.Â
Merely issuance of letter from Mini Secretariat does not mean that petitioner was employee of Secretariat. More over, vide order dated 28.10.1996
petitioner was appointed on officiating basis on the post of Chowkidar.
He further submits that in the letter dated 07.06.1973 (Annexure No. 1 to the Rejoinder Affidavit), the then Governor directed that Border
Development Section under the Chief Secretary Branch would now be known as Hill Development Section. He submits that this letter also shows that
he was employee of Secretariat.Â
This letter deals with Section not the Department. Petitioner is unable to show that Hill Development Section and Uttarakhand Development
Department are one and same. Even if it is assumed that both are same, even then one cannot say that petitioner was an employee of Secretariat. All
the State Government Departments ultimately come under the control of Secretariat, then this does not mean that services rendered by an employee in
that Department is services rendered in Secretariat. Rules and Regulations governing the services conditions of Secretariat employees are totally
different from the Departments under its control.   Â
Petitioner’s services on the post of Peon were absorbed in the Uttarakhand Secretariat, as per Absorption Rules, 2002 and he was placed in the
seniority list as per his seniority and in the said Rules, it is clearly mentioned that seniority shall be counted from the date of substantive appointment in
the Secretariat.Â
In view of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Â