WPSB/201/2020 of SHOORVIR SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALJUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARIAND JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY

Writ Petition (S/B) No.201 of 2020 June 24, 2025

Shoorvir Singh

… Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

… Respondents

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Sushil Vashishtha, Standing Counsel for the State/respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)

1. Petitioner was appointed as Constable PAC in erstwhile State of U.P. in the year 1987. His services were terminated by invoking Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service), Rules, 1975, vide order dated 09.07.1998. He challenged the said termination order before U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow by filing claim petition, which upon State reorganization, was transferred to Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal and was registered as Claim Petition No.181/T/2002. The said claim petition was decided by learned Tribunal, vide judgment dated 18.01.2008, wherein the termination order dated 09.07.1998 was set aside. The operative portion of the judgment rendered by learned Tribunal is extracted below:-

“In the light of discussion above, the impugned order dated 19.07.1998 does not stand scrutiny of law and it is hereby set aside. The petitioner is entitled for the reinstatement from the date of his termination order and he shall be deemed to be in regular service from the date of termination order. There is no order to the salary on the basis of no work no pay and also no order to the

cost.”

2. The judgment rendered by learned Tribunal was challenged by State of Uttarakhand in Writ Petition No.55 (S/B) of 2008, which was dismissed by Coordinate Bench, vide judgment dated 17.10.2011.

3. Since the petitioner was not given consequential service benefits, including A.C.P., for the period he remained out of employment, therefore, he made representation seeking such benefits. His representation was rejected by the Competent Authority, vide order dated 30.06.2018. Petitioner challenged the order dated 30.06.2018 by filing Claim Petition No.84/DB/2018, which has been dismissed by learned Tribunal, vide judgment dated 18.11.2019. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted below:-

“8. Hon’ble High Court, while affirming the order of the Tribunal, did not grant any other relief to the petitioner. It was open to the petitioner to have prayed for all these reliefs which he has claimed here, before Hon’ble High Court (even if he was respondent there). It is not open for this Tribunal, now, to travel beyond what was observed by the Hon’ble High Court. Tribunal’s earlier

order has to be kept in the backdrop, while deciding present claim petition.

9. The import of Tribunal’s earlier order, as we understand, is that there will be no break in service of the petitioner. He has been reinstated and shall be deemed to be in regular service from the date of termination order. Even if salary has not been ordered to be paid to him on the principle of ‘no work no pay’, the effect of Tribunal’s earlier order would be that he will be deemed to be in continuous service from the date on which the order of termination of his services was issued. 10. In the circumstances, how can other benefits be given to him? It is beyond one’s comprehension to infer that he would be entitled to annual increment, ACP, Selection Grade, Leave, Pay Revision during the period he did not work and the Tribunal did not order salary to be paid to him during the period his services were terminated.

11. It is not open for us to travel beyond what was held by the Tribunal in its earlier order and what has been directed by the Hon’ble High Court in writ petition.

12. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner placed decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Shanti Niketan, Hindi Primary School vs. Pal Hariram, 2010 SCLJ 762. Pal Hariram’s case is distinguishable from the facts of present case, in the sense that the Tribunal, in that case had quashed the impugned order passed by Shanti Niketan School and directed reinstatement of Pal Hariram with full salary and other benefits from the date of termination till the date of the order. In the instant case, the Tribunal had withheld salary of the petitioner. He was simply reinstated and direction was given that he shall be deemed in regular service from the date of termination order. There was no direction for payment of salary in the

instant case, whereas in Pal Hariram’s case, full salary and other benefits were directed to be granted.

13. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal vs. Khadag Singh, 2008 (5) SLR 586. Again, the facts of such decision are distinguishable from the facts of present case. Hon’ble Supreme Court did not interfere in the finding given by Hon’ble High Court in Khadag Singh’s decision, in which Hon’ble High Court had directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent in service with all consequential benefits, which consequential benefits were conspicuous by their absence in the instant case. The words used by this Tribunal in its earlier order were – “there is no order to the salary on the basis of no work no pay......”

14. The same is the situation in the decision of State of U.P. and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, 2010 SCLJ 634, in which Hon’ble Apex Court did not interfere with the judgment of Hon’ble High Court, who had directed the employee to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Here the Tribunal, in the earlier order, did not do so. Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand did not add anything to the relief granted to present petitioner by the Tribunal.

15. Reliance has also been placed upon few Government Order, relating to grant of Time Bound Pay Scale and Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short, ACP). These Government Orders would have been relevant when this Tribunal heard the petition for the first time and decided the matter. When the Tribunal had passed the order and such order was affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court, it is not open to us to reconsider what was not granted to the petitioner by the Tribunal. 16. The claim petition is hereby dismissed. No order as

to costs.”

4. Petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 18.11.2019 passed by learned Tribunal, whereby his claim petition was dismissed, in this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since in the earlier claim petition, wherein the petitioner had challenged the termination order, learned Tribunal had not only set aside the termination order but had also directed that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in regular service from the date of termination order, therefore, petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with continuity in service, therefore, there was no reason or justification, whatsoever, for withholding the service benefits, including the A.C.P. to him.

6. He further submits that the Competent Authority rejected petitioner’s claim for such benefits with total non application of mind, vide order dated 30.06.2018, and the learned Tribunal also went astray while dismissing the claim petition on the ground that since petitioner did not seek such benefits before the High Court, therefore, the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in subsequent claim petition cannot be granted. Petitioner submits that before the High Court, State was the petitioner, which had challenged the judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal, therefore, petitioner had no occasion to seek any new relief in petition, in which he was added as respondent.

7. He further submits that as result of setting aside the termination order by the learned Tribunal, it shall be deemed, as if, petitioner was never terminated from service and he remained in continuous service throughout; although petitioner would not be entitled to arrears of salary, in view of stipulation made by the learned Tribunal in its earlier judgment, however, there is no reason for denying him other benefits, which every government servant is entitled to, based on his/her length of service.

8. We find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. Since the order of termination of service was set aside by learned Tribunal on the ground that petitioner cannot be treated as temporary government employee after ten years of his appointment and without holding disciplinary enquiry his services could not have been terminated, therefore, as natural corollary, petitioner will be deemed to be in continuous service throughout. Thus, petitioner became entitled to increments, though notionally, for the period he remained out of employment and the period during which he remained out of employment, on account of termination of his service, has to be taken into account for monetary benefits, including A.C.P., which are available to similarly situate government employees, as per Government Policy.

10. The reasoning given by learned Tribunal for dismissing the claim petition, in our considered opinion,

does not stand to reason. Thus, we allow the writ petition, set aside the judgment in Claim Petition No.84/DB/2018 and direct the Competent Authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for monetary benefits as per Government Policy/Rules, within period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 24.06.2025 24.06.2025

RajniRAJINI GUSAINDigitally signed by RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48448ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4DF4FC80D4557562F95BEBA013F530616A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2025.06.25 23:08:08 -07'00'RAJINI GUSAINDigitally signed by RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48448ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4DF4FC80D4557562F95BEBA013F530616A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2025.06.25 23:08:08 -07'00'