Tulsi Prasad Bhatt vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

This intra Court Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging judgment dated 08.09.2020 rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3256 of 2017. Paragraph nos. 12, 13 & 14 of the impugned judgment are reproduced below: -

“12. Reverting to the merits of the case, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the services rendered by the petitioner before his regularization is liable to be counted for pensionary benefits, it is established on record that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Tax Collector on adhoc basis on 21.10.2003 and on 01.05.2004 his services were terminated. Thereafter, on 08.12.2005, again he was appointed on adhoc basis. By a Notification dated 25.10.2005, the new pension scheme came into force w.e.f. 01.10.2005, which provided that the new defined contribution pensions system would mandatorily apply to all the new recruits to the service of the State Government and of all State-controlled autonomous/ State aided private education institutions.. That being the position, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

While deciding the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 20.03.2017, Director, Panchayati Raj, Dehradun, has also observed that by order dated 01.06.2013, petitioner has been given appointment on the pay scale of 5200-20200 grade pay 1800, on temporary basis, but it is not clear as to under which rules or regulations the petitioner has been appointed. The petitioner was appointed without adopting due process of law. It appears to this Court also that the appointment of the petitioner was made through backdoor entry. On merit, petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference by this Court. The Director, Panchayati Raj, has rejected the representation of the petitioner by a well reasoned and speaking order. This Court does not find any illegality in the same.

In view of foregoing discussion, there is no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.”

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since appellant was initially appointed as Tax Collector in Zila Panchayat in October, 2003 and his services were subsequently regularized vide order dated 01.06.2013, therefore, appellant is entitled to seniority and other benefits from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 21.10.2003.

Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that Annexure-3 to the writ petition is order of regular appointment issued by Uppar Mukhya Adhikari, on 01.06.2013. He submits that the said order is not an order of regularization, but, it is a fresh appointment, which was given to the appellant in view of direction issued by Chairman, Zila Panchayat, on 29.05.2013. He submits that such regular appointment could not have been given to the appellant without following the statutory Rules and regular appointment on the post of Tax Collector can be made, only after regular selection, which was not done. He further submits that learned Single Judge has considered and discussed the matter in great detail and has denied relief to the appellant. He submits that appellant had claimed seniority and other benefits for the services rendered before his regular appointment in 2013, by making a representation, which was rejected by Director, Panchayati Raj, by a reasoned order. He thus submits that the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge is perfect and any interference with the said judgment would not be warranted.

We have gone through the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has given valid reasons for denying relief to the petitioner. As per the applicable rules, no benefit of past services rendered as daily wager/ ad hoc employee can be given and seniority has to be reckoned, only from the date of substantive appointment. The date of substantive appointment of appellant is 01.06.2013, therefore, seniority of the appellant has to be reckoned, only with reference to the date of his substantive appointment i.e. 01.06.2013.

Thus, we do not find any scope for interference in the matter. The Appeal fails and is dismissed.