Er. Bipin Kumar And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 2751 UK

        HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                      Writ Petition (S/S) No. 951 of 2021

Er. Bipin Kumar and others                                         ........... Petitioners

                                            Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another                                  ........ Respondents


Present :   Dr. Udyog Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners.
            Mr. P.C. Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondents.



                                      JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Petitioners seek the following reliefs:

"(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the govt order no. 1530/111(1)/2020-131 (Adhi) 2006 dated 08-09-2020 so far as against the post on which the petitioners are working and the respondent may kindly be directed to reserve the post of the petitioners till the decision of regularization is pending similarly as the respondent department has reserved one post of the Jr. Engineer for regularization as it has been kept in seal paper before the selection committee the petitioners post on which they are working as Jr. Engineers may also be kept reserve till the decision of regularization is not been taken in accordance with law (contained Annexure No. 4, to this writ petition.)

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation dated 09-01-2021 submitted before the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Uttarakhand (as at that point of time) the Ministry of Public Work Department was with Hon'ble Chief Minister) in accordance with law.

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to regularize the services of the petitioners in respondent no. 2 department in accordance with law.

(iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to comply with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Pubjab Vs. Joginder Singh AIR 1963 SCC 913; Jabar Singh and Others V/s State of Haryana reported in 1972 (2) SCC 275; State of Punjab Vs Jagjeet Singh 2017(1) SCC 148 as well as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sabha Shankar Dubey 2018, as well as judgment passed by

this Hon'ble Court in SPA no. 963/2017 the State of Uttarakhand Vs. Rakshpal Singh and others and make the payment of contractual salary at par with the regular Jr. Engineers working with respondent no. 2 department in accordance with law as far as the present petitioners are concerned.

(v) Any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(vi) Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioners."

2. All the petitioners claim that they have been appointed on contract basis, but they are not being paid equal pay for equal work. It is also the grievance of the petitioners that their services are not being regularized. They also have grievance that since they are in the service, the requisition for fresh recruitment, as initiated by the respondents should also be quashed.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to how the instant petition should be entertained in view of the availability of alternate efficacious remedy from the State Public Services Tribunal, as constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.

5. At it, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 683 of 2021, a Coordinate Bench has directed the respondents to decide the representation, as may be submitted by the petitioners in that case.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners restricts his remedy to the extent that respondent no. 2 may be directed to decide the representation dated 10.05.2021 (Page 126 of this petition).

7. Learned State counsel gives a statement that the representation dated 10.05.2021 (Page 126 of the petition) filed by the

petitioners would be decided by respondent no. 2 within a period of two months from today.

7. The Court takes on record the statement given by the learned State counsel.

8. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to respondent no. 2 to decide the representation dated 10.05.2021 (Page 126 of the petition) filed by the petitioners within a period of two months from today. But, in case the dispute is still not resolved, even after consideration of the representation, any writ petition, on the subject, shall not be entertained by this Court merely on the ground that it is in sequel to the instant writ petition.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.08.2021 Avneet/