Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/573/2021 on 13 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARAYAN SINGH DHANIK
WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 573 OF 2021
13TH DECEMBER, 2021
Between:
State of Uttarakhand and others.
...Petitioners
and
Shrish Kumar.
...Respondent
Counsel for the petitioners. : Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, the learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
the State of Uttarakhand..
Counsel for the respondent. : Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, the learned counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
The State is aggrieved by the order, dated
24.12.2020, passed by the Uttarakhand Public Services
Tribunal, Bench at Nainital, whereby the learned
Tribunal has not only allowed the Claim Petition filed by
the respondent-claimant, but has also directed the State
to sanction and grant pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 with
grade pay of Rs. 7600 from the date his juniors were
granted, i.e. with effect from 31.03.2014, to the
claimant. The said benefit had to be paid to the
claimant within four months from the date of production
of the certified copy of the said order.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that according
to the claimant, he is a member of the State Civil
Service (Executive Branch). On 11.02.2004, he was
promoted on ad-hoc basis to the post of Deputy
Collector. Subsequently, on 01.03.2007, he was
regularly promoted to the said post. By order dated
26.04.2012, he was granted a senior pay-scale of Rs.
15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600.
3. On 29.07.2016, a Selection Committee held its
meeting for recommending the scale/grade pay of Rs.
15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 7600. After
considering the records of thirty-two officers, the
Committee recommended the selection scale for thirty
officers. The recommendation with regard to the
claimant was kept in a sealed cover envelope inter alia
on the ground that a disciplinary proceeding was
pending against the claimant. On the basis of the
2
recommendations made by the Committee, thirty
officers were granted the selection scale of Rs. 15600-
39100, with Grade Pay of Rs. 7600, vide order dated
02.08.2016.
4. According to the claimant, while he was in
service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against
him on 13.07.2013. It is due to the pendency of the
disciplinary proceeding that his case was kept in a
sealed cover envelope. However, subsequently, by
order dated 20.12.2016 the disciplinary proceeding was
dropped without culminating into a punishment order.
After the dropping of the disciplinary proceeding, the
sealed cover envelope was opened on 12.12.2017 by the
appointing authority. However, the claimant has been
denied the benefit of the selection scale ostensibly on
the ground that there was an adverse entry in the
Annual Confidential Report relating to the year 2013-
2014. According to the department, although the said
entry was communicated to the claimant on 02.08.2016
and 02.11.2016, the claimant never filed a
representation against the said adverse entry.
Therefore, due to the adverse entry, the selection grade
could not be granted to the claimant.
3
5. Since the claimant was aggrieved by the said
decision, he filed a Claim Petition before the learned
Tribunal as aforementioned. The learned Tribunal
allowed the Claim Petition in the abovementioned terms.
Hence, this Writ Petition before this Court.
6. Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, the learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand-
petitioners, submits that the adverse entries were,
indeed, communicated to the claimant by letter dated
02.08.2016 and 02.11.2016. Despite the
communication of the adverse entries, the claimant
chose not to challenge the same by filing a
representation before the concerned authority.
Therefore on 12.12.2017, a valid order had been passed
denying the claimant the benefit of the selection grade.
Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned
Tribunal deserves to be set aside by this Court.
7. The issue before this Court, as well as before
the learned Tribunal, was whether the adverse entries,
which were never communicated prior to the holding of
4
the Selection Committee, could be read against the
claimant, or not?
8. Admittedly, the Selection Committee met on
29.07.2016. Undoubtedly, even if the statement of the
petitioners-State were to be accepted, the adverse
entries were not communicated to the claimant till
02.08.2016 i.e. four days after the holding of the
Selection Committee.
9. Moreover, for the second time, the said
adverse entries were communicated on 02.11.2016, i.e.
almost after four months of the Selection Committee
taking a decision. Thus, on the date when the Selection
Committee met, the adverse entries were not
communicated to the claimant. In catena of cases, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that an
adverse entry, which is not communication to an
employee, the same cannot be read against the
employee for the grant of selection grade. Therefore,
the appointing authority was not justified in reading the
said adverse entry against the claimant.
5
10. Moreover, even the departmental enquiry,
which was initiated against the claimant was eventually
dropped by the department. Therefore, even the
pendency of the said departmental enquiry cannot be
read against the claimant. Both these factors have been
noticed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, this Court
does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned
order passed by the learned Tribunal.
11. For the reasons stated above, this Court does
not find any merit in the present Writ Petition. It is,
hereby, dismissed.
12. The petitioners are directed to comply with the
order passed by the learned Tribunal within a period of
two months from the date of the production of a certified
copy of this order.
_____________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
_______________________
NARAYAN SINGH DHANIK, J.
Dt: 13th December, 2021
Rahul
