Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/9/2021 on 8 January, 2021
THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH
CHAUHAN, C.J.
AND
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE LOK PAL SINGH, J.
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO.09 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. State of Uttarakhand, Through Principal
Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Uttarakhand,
Dehradun.
3. Chief Education Officer, Bageshwar, District
Bageshwar.
.....Petitioners.
(By Shri Anil Kumar Bisht, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel)
AND:
Mohan Chandra Joshi,
S/o Shri Radha Ballabh,
R/o Village Matana, Post Office Matana, Tehsil
Garur, District Bageshwar
.....Respondents.
(By Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel).
This writ petition coming on for hearing this day,
Hon'ble Shri Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J.
delivered the following order:
2
JUDGMENT
The State of Uttarakhand has challenged
the legality of the order dated 18.03.2020, passed by
the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal ('the learned
Tribunal' for short), whereby the learned Tribunal had
allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioner, Mr.
Mohan Chandra Joshi, and had directed the State to
grant notional promotion to him on the post of
Headmaster w.e.f. 24.02.2016, instead of
13.10.2017; the learned Tribunal had also directed
the State to grant similar benefits of promotion/pay
scale of Rs.7600/- to the petitioner w.e.f. 29.12.016.
The said notional promotion and the benefit of pay-
scale were to be granted within a period of four
months from the date of the said order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties
shall be referred to as arrayed in the claim petition
filed by Mr. Mohan Chandra Joshi.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, on
11.11.1980, Mr. Joshi was appointed as C.T. Grade
Teacher. In 1982, he was upgraded as L.T. Grade by
the Director, Secondary Education. On 19.09.2007, he
was promoted as Lecturer (Economics); he was
posted at the Government Inter College, Dhaina,
District Bageshwar.
4. According to the petitioner, a final seniority
list was duly published. According to the seniority list,
while the petitioner's name figured at Sl. No.3635,
the name of his junior, Mr. Ghanshyam Prasad Pant
figured at Sl. No.3691. Moreover, according to the
petitioner, a wrong date of birth was recorded in his
service records. His date of birth was incorrectly
shown as 28.05.1955, whereas his actual date of birth
was 15.11.1957. Once this mistake was pointed out
by the petitioner to the department, the department
agreed in conceded that a wrong date of birth had
been recorded in the service records of the petitioner.
Consequently, his date of birth was corrected as
15.11.1957. Furthermore, according to the petitioner,
on 24.02.2016, Mr. Ghanshyam Prasad Pant, who was
junior to the petitioner, was promoted as a
Headmaster. Inadvertently, taking the date of birth of
the petitioner as 28.05.1955 and under the
impression that by 24.02.2016, the petitioner would
have retired, he was denied the promotion to the post
of Headmaster. It is only when his date of birth was
corrected, that the petitioner was promoted on the
post of Headmaster on 13.10.2017.
5. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the
denial of promotion and by the denial of the rightful
pay-scale, he filed a writ petition, namely Writ Petition
(S/B) No.141 of 2019, before this Court. However, by
order dated 23.04.2019, this Court directed the
petitioner to approach the learned Tribunal.
Consequently, the petitioner filed a claim petition
before the learned Tribunal. As mentioned
hereinabove, by the impugned order dated
18.03.2020, the learned Tribunal granted the relief to
the petitioner. Hence, this petition before this Court.
6. Mr. Anil K. Bisht, the learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State, has
vehemently pleaded that the petitioner was denied his
promotion to the post of Headmaster on 24.02.2016,
as his date of birth was shown as 28.05.1955.
Moreover, the petitioner did not raise any grievance
immediately after the juniors were promoted. It is
only subsequently that he raised these pleas.
Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the order
passed by the learned Tribunal is legally
unsustainable. Hence, the said order deserves to be
set-aside by this Court.
7. Heard Mr. Anil K. Bisht, the learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and
perused the impugned order.
8. Admittedly, it is the State that had
conceded that the date of birth of the petitioner was
wrongly recorded as 28.05.1955, whereas his actual
date of birth was 15.11.1957. Once the mistake was
discovered by the State, the State was legally bound
to give the benefit to the petitioner rather than
denying the benefit to him. Even if, the juniors were
promoted on 24.02.2016, the State, as a model
employer, should have restored the petitioner to his
original position i.e. by granting notional promotion to
the petitioner on the post of Headmaster and by
granting the rightful pay-scale to the petitioner.
However, the State failed to carry out its duty
towards its employee. Therefore, the State has acted
in the most unfair and unreasonable manner. Merely
because the petitioner has not raised his voice
immediately after the promotion was given to Shri
Ghanshyam Prasad Pant, is no reason to deny him the
benefits which accrue to him in accordance with law.
It is these aspects which have been noticed by the
learned Tribunal. Therefore, this Court does not find
any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
9. For the reasons stated aforesaid, this Court
does not find any merit in this petition; the same is,
hereby, dismissed.
10. Pending application, if any, stands rejected.
(Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Lok Pal Singh, J.)
NISHANT
