Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Deveshwari Gusain vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 16 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No.1881 of 2020
Smt. Deveshwari Gusain ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & another .....Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/S) No.1886 of 2020
Smt. Sarita Dimri ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & others .....Respondents
Mr. R.S. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Additional CSC, for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J (Oral)
These are the two writ petitions, which are listed today
on IA No.02 of 2021, filed by the respondent No.1, along with the
counter affidavit, and IA No.02 of 2021, filed by the respondent No.1,
along with the counter affidavit in the respective writ petitions, which
are listed today. Counter affidavits are taken on record.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners
contention in the writ petition had been that in pursuance to the
decision taken by the State of Uttar Pradesh way back on 13.01.1977,
14 posts were created of Master Craftsman, and 14 post of Assistant
Craftsman, who were to be appointed on a contractual basis, on a
consolidated salary.
3. The petitioners contend that on the basis of the creation
of the said contractual post by the State's decision of 13.01.1977. The
petitioners of the aforesaid Writ Petitions claim that they were
appointed as an Assistant Craftsman at Carpet Weaving Centre,
Srinagar, though on temporary basis on 20.07.1987. The petitioners
have further contended, that later on their services of the petitioners
were transferred as a Master Craftsman on the consolidated salary,
and they had voluntarily joined the transfer place at "Tehri", and ever
since then, it is contended that they had been discharging their duties
in the said capacity with the respondents.
4 The petitioners in the writ petitions had prayed for a writ
of mandamus to be issued to the respondents to regularize the services
of the petitioners w.e.f. 12.04.2019, the date from which, the services
of the similarly situated persons have been regularized and also to
extend all the consequential benefits. For the purposes of brevity, the
relief claimed is extracted hereunder:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents to
regularize the services of petitioner w.e.f.
12.04.2019, the date from which the services of
similarly situated persons have been regularized
with all consequential benefits.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents to pay
the salary and arrears of pay to the petitioner
w.e.f. 12.04.2019, the date from which the
services of similarly situated persons have been
regularized.
(iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in favour of petitioner under the facts
and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of petition to the petitioner."
5. In fact, the foundation of the claim of the petitioners in
the writ petitions is based upon the fact, that the issue raised by the
petitioners with regards to the claim of regularization of the
petitioners services as an Assistant Craftsman, is no more an issue res
integra, for the reason being that after considering the implications of
the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in
2006 (4) SCC 1, "State of Karnataka & others Vs. Uma Devi &
others", the respondents have formulated the regularization Rules, as
a policy for regularizing the services and subsequently the issue of
regularization of identically placed employees came up for
consideration in a Writ Petition being WPSS No.38 of 2015, "Smt.
Pushpa Ramola Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others", wherein, a
claim for the regularization of the petitioner, therein, was considered
by the coordinate Bench of this Court, and the same was decided by
the judgment dated 09.10.2015, whereby, a coordinate Bench of this
Court had passed the following directions:-
"4. In view of the above, the writ petitions
stand disposed with the direction to the Principal
Secretary/Secretary, Department of Industries,
Government of Uttarakhand who shall decide the
representations of the petitioners in the light of
Rules, 2011 and considering the long period of
service of the petitioners and make their
regularization. It is made clear that regularization
shall be effective on the date of their regularization
and petitioners will not claim any other benefits
prior to the said date."
6. In compliance of the judgment dated 09.10.2015, it is
contended by the petitioners, that the State Government has issued a
letter on 30.11.2015, 14.12.2015 and 18.12.2015, seeking a report for
the purposes of the regularizing the services of the Master Craftsman
on the basis of the Regularization Rules of 2011, and accordingly, it
was informed that the Master Craftsman, thus, appointed as against
the sanction post created by then State of Uttar Pradesh, in the year
1977, the Directorate had passed an order on 22.12.2015, fortifying
the fact about the entitlement of the candidates thus appointed to be
considered for regularization.
7. However, the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench
of this Court 09.10.2015, as referred above, was put to challenge in
Special Appeal No.42 of 2017, "State of Uttarakhand & others Vs.
Smt. Padma Arya & others", whereby the Division Bench of this
Court too by the judgment of 26.10.2017, had affirmed the judgment
of the learned Single Judge, whereby, the partial modification was
made to the judgment dated 09.10.2015, in view of the directions as
contained in paragraph Nos.10 and 11, of the judgment of the Division
Bench, which is extracted hereunder:-
"10. Accordingly, the appeals are partly
allowed and we delete the portion that the
appellants shall regularize the 6
respondents/writ petitioners, and direct
that the case of the respondents/writ
petitioners will be considered as per the
Rules.
11. We make it abundantly clear that the
direction for deletion of the portion
relating to regularization should not be
understood as a direction that the
respondents/writ petitioners should not be
regularized. We further direct that the
claim of the respondents/writ petitioners
will be decided within a period of one
month from the date of production of
certified copy of this judgment."
8. There was yet another set of proceedings, which was
initiated by way of a Writ Petition being WPSS No.354 of 2015,
"Smt. Rajni Joshi Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others", yet again
claiming a relief for regularization under the Rules of 2011, which too
was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated
08.12.2017, whereby the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the
earlier judgment, already referred above. The said judgment dated
09.10.2015, which was affirmed by the Division Bench with the slight
modification; that the claim of the regularization has to be considered
in accordance with the Rules, was yet again affirmed by another
judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.113
of 2016, "State of Uttarakhand & others Vs. Smt. Pushpa
Ramola". These judgments rendered by the Division Bench, and
particularly, that of 26.09.2018, as rendered in Special Appeal No.113
of 2016, was put to challenge by the State before the Hon'ble Apex
Court in an SLP (Civil) Diary No.5266/2019, and the SLP has been
dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by the judgment dated
15.03.2019.
9. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts which are
being brought on record, the claim of the regularization of the
petitioners, as against the post against which they were appointed in
the year 1977, is no more an issue res integra, rather it has been
settled by the Division Bench judgment which was later on affirmed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
10. Hence, these writ petitions too would stand disposed of in
terms of the directions issued by the coordinate Bench of this Court in
its judgment dated 09.10.2015, which was considered by the Division
Bench in its judgment rendered on 26.10.2017. Accordingly, the
respondents are directed to take a call upon the petitioners claim for
regularization as per the mandate of the Division Bench judgment
dated 26.10.2017. The decision with regards to the claim of the
petitioners based upon the aforesaid ratio would be taken by the
respondent No.2, within a period of two months from the date of the
production of the certified copy of this judgment.
11. With the above observations, the writ petition stand
disposed of accordingly.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
16.11.2021
NR/
