Uttarakhand High Court
Sangram Singh Negi vs State Of Uttarakhand on 14 June, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.652 of 2021 (S/S)
Sangram Singh Negi .....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondents
Advocate: Mr. Mangal Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sachin Mehta, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
The petitioner before this Court is 65 years aged person, who has
already retired from services of the respondent. The basic facts pleaded by the
petitioner was that he was appointed as Peon as back as on 18.09.1979 and he
had worked on the said post till he was confirmed on the post of Mate in the
year 1991.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that by the office order of
14.08.1987, he has been accorded with certain benefits by the order of the
Assistant Engineer II Vishnu Prayag Construction Division, I, but the fact is that
after completion of 10 years of satisfactory services with the respondents
department i.e. on 18.09.1989, on the post of Mate which petitioner has
interpreted it to be calculated from the date of initial appointment from
18.09.1979, which contradicts his pleading from para 1 to 5 wherein in para 1,
he submits that he was appointed as a Peon and in para 10 he submits that he has
completed 10 years of service as a Mate, as on 18.09.1989.
3. The petitioner's services are claimed to have regularized by the
Government Order No.1648 dated 07.2.1991, by the office of Executive
Engineer, Vishnu Prayag, Construction Division I, and on the basis of the said
letter the petitioner was declared to be regularized with effect from 01.09.1992.
The respondent no.2 has issued various Government Orders, which were issued
by the personnel department of Chief Engineer from time to time, who is the
Head of Department of the Irrigation Department, whereby in pursuance to the
Office Memorandums particularly, the Office Memorandum No.2390/11-2014-1
(313) 2003 dated 18.09.2014.
4. The petitioner contends that the petitioner would be entitled for the
grant of an conversion from the post of Peon to Mate and the benefit of the
Government Order, on completion of 26 years of satisfactory service, by paying
him the grade pay of Rs.4200/- he was entitled to receive the same. The
pleading of para 8 of the writ petition is yet again contradictory to the pleading
of para 1 and 5 of the writ petition, regarding the status of his appointment and
alleging subsequently acquiring the status of Peon. Be that as it may.
5. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition praying for
quashing of the order dated 01.12.2020, which was passed by respondent no.4,
which he has interpreted as if, by virtue of the said order, there was a denial
made by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Rudraprayag; from
extending the benefit of Government Order dated 22.09.2014, by paying him the
grade pay of Rs.4200/- on 26 years of services. In fact, this interpretation given
by the petitioner is contrary to the impugned order itself because in the
impugned order, the direction given therein are as under:-
^^vr% vkils vuqjks/k djuk gS fd vki pijklh ls esV ds in ij ifjorZu ls
lEcfU/kr 'kklukns'k ,oa dk;kZy; Kki ¼;fn vkids ikl gks rks½ dks miyC/k djkuk
lqfuf'pr djsaA rkfd 'kklukns'k ,oa eq[; vfHk;Urk ds i=kad
[email protected]@[email protected] bZ&[email protected] fnukad 22-09-2014 ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj
esV ds in ij 26 o"kZ dh lsok mijkUr xzsM is&4200 iznku fd;s tkus gsrq vxzsRrj
dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk lEHko gks ldsA**
6. In fact, if the direction given in the impugned order is taken into
consideration, it was not a denial made from paying the grade pay, but rather the
petitioner was directed to furnish certain documents, and Government Orders, in
order to facilitate the respondents in determination of the grade pay, which was
claimed by him, as such since there was no apparent denial by the order of
01.12.2020, the writ petition is pre mature. The petitioner is directed to approach
the competent authority i.e. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division,
Rudraprayag, satisfying the terms and condition of the letter of 01.12.2020, by
placing the relevant documents on record for the purposes of determination, of
entitlement of payment of grade pay of Rs.4200/-, as was claimed by the
petitioner on completion of 26 years of service. If the petitioner supplies the
documents as required by the Impugned Order No.1461 dated 01.12.2020, the
respondent would process the same strictly in accordance of law and take an
appropriate decision on the same within a period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this judgment.
7. Subject to the above, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
14.06.2021
Arti
