SPA/66/2018 of State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS Vs Vijay Singh AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDAT NAINITAL

Special Appeal No. 66 of 2018

State of Uttarakhand & Others …….... Appellants

Vijay Singh & Others

……..Respondents

Mr. Narayan Datt, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. M. C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrartha Kandpal, Advocate for the respondents.

Coram: Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.Hon’ble Lok Pal Singh, J.

Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral)

In view of the grounds taken in the delay condonation application, duly supported with the accompanying affidavit, delay of 77 days’ is hereby condoned. Delay condonation application (CLMA No. 1373 of 2018) is allowed. 2. The present controversy raised in the appeal has conclusively been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Habib Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand & others”, decided on 23.08.2017. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:-

“6. The pari materia provision contained in Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules had been struck down by Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab and ors.1 The challenge by the State against the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was negatived by this Court. The matter came up for consideration before this Court, once again, in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and anr. vs. Narata Singh and anr.2. While dealing with the said question this Court in paragraph 25 of the report held of the Punjab Civil Services Rules had been struck down by Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab and ors.1 The challenge by the State against the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was negatived by this Court. The matter came up for consideration before this Court, once again, in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and anr. vs. Narata Singh and anr.2. While dealing with the said question this Court in paragraph 25 of the report held

that the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was perfectly justified in striking down Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules resulting in obliteration of the distinction made in the said Rules between 'temporary and officiating service' and 'work-charged service'. On the said basis, this Court took the view that the period of work-charged service should be reckoned for purposes of computation of 'qualifying service' for grant of pension.

The judgment rendered by the Division Bench

of this Court in Satpal Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, passed in Special Appeal No. 108 of 2014, vide judgment dated 23.10.2017, on the same legal issue was also upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

4. The law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is law binding on all the subordinate authorities throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Moreover the order dated 24.10.2017 is compromise/ consent order and the State Government is precluded from challenging the same. Accordingly the present appeal is dismissed with cost quantified at Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only).

5. The State Government is also advised not to file frivolous special appeals when the controversy raised in this appeal has already been decided conclusively by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It amounts to negation of rule of the law and wastage of public money. The cost shall be recovered from the erring officers/officials, who have advised filing of the special appeal.

6. In view of the above, the judgment impugned is hereby affirmed. The present special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(Lok Pal Singh, J.)

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)