Uttarakhand High Court
Tripti Karnatak vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 19 April, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 148 of 2020
Tripti Karnatak ........... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Mr. Vinoda Nand Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. Anjali Bhargawa, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondent
nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Adarsh Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for the
respondent nos.3 and 4.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the
following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of mandamus
to the Respondents no.1 & 2 and grant of minimum pay
scale to her and for regularization of the petitioner with
speaking order.
(ii) Issue writ rule or direction in the nature mandamus
directing to the respondents to consider the case of
petitioner for regularization keeping in view his
continuous service, since 03.06.2015 and in view the
facts mentioned in the body of the writ petition along
with all consequential benefits and to declare the
continuation of the petitioner since, 03.06.2015 on the
post of Assistant Clerk/Computer Operator is
substantive and continuous and for same and identical
nature of work for all practical purposes.
(iii) Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of prohibition
to restrain the respondents to start any exercise of
regularization without including the name of the
petitioner in the eligibility list Assistant
Clerk/Computer Operator and also to direct the
respondents to keep one post of Assistant
Clerk/Computer reserve till the redressal of grievances
of the petitioner.
(iv) Issue writ rule or direction appropriate in the nature
mandamus directing the respondents to classify the
petitioner as permanent workmen as per Model
Standing Orders or for regularization in terms of the
regularization rules of 2013 by treating the continuous
work of petitioner as substantive and permanent and
also against available and vacant post, after calling the
entire records in view the facts highlighted in the body
of the petition.
(v) Issue any other writ rule or direction, which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
(vi) Award cost of petition. "
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was initially
appointed as Assistant Clerk/Computer Operator on 03.06.2015 in
Nagar Panchayat, Dev Prayag, District Tehri Garhwal. She has not
been paid minimum wages. In the instant matter the State as well as
respondent nos.3 and 4, the Nagar Palika concerned have filed their
counter affidavits.
3. This matter is being heard through video conferencing.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that he restricts his prayer that directions may be given to the
respondent no.3 to decide the representation dated 25.06.2019, filed by
the petitioner. The factum of the given representation had been given in
para 9 of the petition. The State had not replied this paragraph in their
counter affidavit and left it to the concerned Nagar Palika. The
respondent no.3, in its counter affidavit in para 6, has stated that, a
recommendation has been made to the State Government and the
respondent nos.3 and 4 has no role as of now.
5. But today, Mr. Adarsh Tiwari, Advocate, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent nos.3 and 4 would give a statement that
the representation dated 25.06.2019, filed by the petitioner will be
decided by the respondent nos.3 within a period of five weeks from
today.
6. The Court takes on record the statement made by the
learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4.
7. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the
respondent no.3 to decide the representation dated 25.06.2019, filed by
the petitioner within a period of five weeks from today.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
19.04.2021
Sanjay
