Munni Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 45 UK

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

               Writ Petition (S/S) No.1806 of 2020

Munni Devi                                                ........Petitioner

                                    Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others                           .........Respondents
Present: Mr. I.P. Gairola, Advocate for the petitioner.
         Mr. P.S. Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the State.


Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the petitioner on the basis of more than 26 years of service rendered by her. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to pay the minimum of pay-scale with effect from 17.10.2003.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.40597 of 1999 (S/S), Munni Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. The said writ petition was transferred to this Court and this Court vide order dated 05.09.2003 disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3634 of 1998, "State of U.P. and others Vs. Putti Lal".

3. It is averred that despite the specific direction issued by this Court vide its order dated 05.09.2003, the respondents have not complied with the said direction issued by this Court.

4. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the material

brought on record, this Court is convinced that despite the direction issued by this Court in its judgment and order dated 05.09.2003 in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "State of U.P. and others Vs. Putti Lal", the respondents have not taken any decision on the representation of the petitioner. As of now, about 17 years have been elapsed, but no decision has been taken by the respondents and they are sitting over the order passed by this Court on 05.09.2003.

5. Respondents cannot be permitted to sit over a judgment of this Court for a long time without redressing the grievance of the petitioner.

6. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "State of U.P. and others Vs. Putti Lal".

(Lok Pal Singh, J.) 06.01.2021 Shubham