WPSS/579/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 1732 UK

                     Office Notes, reports,
SL.                 orders or proceedings or
          Date                                                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                 directions and Registrar's
                     order with Signatures


      25.05.2021
                                                WPSS No. 579 of 2021
                                                Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

(Via Video Conferencing) Mr. Harendra Belwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. P.S. Bisht, Addl. CSC, for the State of Uttarakhand.

This is a second set of proceedings, which has been initiated by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:-

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the impugned order dated 05.06.2017, issued by respondent No. 4 (Annexure No. 7 to this writ petition), so far it relates to the petitioner.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant him minimum of pay scale along its arrears on the basis of principal law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1486-1487 of 2020, title as Uttaranchal Van Shramik Sangh Ranibhag etc. Versus The State of Uttarakhand & ors. etc. along with other connected appeals decided on 12.02.2020.

iii) Issue any suitable order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.

iv) To award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.

In fact, the nature of reliefs, which have been modulated in the writ petition, the petitioner has given a challenge to the order dated 05.06.2017, which was passed by the respondents in pursuance to an earlier directions, which were issued by the coordinate Bench of this Court in WPSS No. 2338 of 2015, which was preferred by the petitioner, claiming for the payment of minimum of wages, the said writ petition was disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court, by a judgement dated 17.04.2017, thereby directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner and grant minimum of pay-scale.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in pursuance to the said decision taken by the Court, which was based upon an earlier judgment of this Court by yet another coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in WPSS No. 2008 of 2014, which was decided by the judgement dated 14.08.2015, the representation of the petitioner was considered and the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 05.06.2017, which is under challenge now.

When the matter was heard on its merit, the learned Standing Counsel for the State, while scrutinising the propriety of the impugned order, had drawn the attention of this Court to the conclusion drawn by the Divisional Forest Officer, in relation to the petitioner, wherein it has been observed that he was appointed, as un-skilled employee for a limited period from 01.06.2013 till 31.07.2015, but later on, since he was found to be indulged in an act of illegal mining activity, his services were dispensed with w.e.f. 01.08.2015. Hence, the Divisional Forest Officer has observed that once the service has been dispensed with, there is no question of payment of minimum wages, because he is not in service and there existed no relationship of master and servant.

From the writ petition, and even from the judgement dated 17.04.2017, rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition of the petitioner, it does not reflect that the petitioner has ever given a challenge to the order dated 01.08.2015, by virtue of which, it has been observed that his services were terminated on account of his indulgment in illegal mining activities.

Once this order of removal which happens to be of 01.08.2015, and the petitioner has not put challenge to it, in the earlier Writ Petition No. 2338 of 2015, he would be estopped now at this stage to put a challenge to the said order at this belated stage, particularly when he has waived of his rights of giving a challenge to it in the earlier writ petition.

In that eventuality, once he is not in service, and is not an employee of respondent, his lien to receive the minimum of wages, as was directed to be considered by way of representation by the Divisional Forest Officer, was rightly rejected by the impugned order dated 05.06.2017. Apart from it, in case, if this order is taken into consideration, it is an order which was passed way back in 2017, and the copy of the same was served on the petitioner; as would be apparent from the note clause of the order rejecting his claim. But the petitioner himself has not filed the writ petition within an appropriate time and had filed this writ petition, at a highly belated stage i..e in 2021, without explaining the latches also.

Be that as it may. Since the reason for rejecting the representation of the petitioner being that he is not in service ever since 01.08.2015, he has got no right as such for the grant of minimum of pay scale, because there exists no lien with him, as there existed no master servant relationship.

Consequently, I do not find any merits in the writ petition, the same is dismissed accordingly.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 25.05.2021 Mahinder/