SPA/214/2020
2021 Latest Caselaw 4661 UK

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                          AT NAINITAL
      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

                                 AND

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARAYAN SINGH DHANIK

            SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2020

                    22ND NOVEMBER, 2021

BETWEEN:

Secretary School Education State of Uttarakhand & others

                                                      .....Appellants.

And


Dinesh Chandra Joshi & others                       ....Respondents.

With SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2020 BETWEEN:

Secretary School Education State of Uttarakhand & others

.....Appellants.

And

Basanti Devi & others ....Respondents.

With SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2020 BETWEEN:

Secretary School Education & others .....Appellants.

And

Tribhuwan Kumar Kohali & others ....Respondents.

With SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2020 BETWEEN:

Secretary School Education State of Uttarakhand & others .....Appellants.

And

Heera Singh Sayala & others ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. Vikas Pande.

Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Lalit Samant.

The Court made the following:

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)

Since all these special appeals raise the same legal

issues, they are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The appellants have challenged the legality of the

order dated 22.10.2019, passed by a learned Single Judge, in

Writ Petition (S/S) No.2177 of 2018, and other connected

matters, whereby the learned Single Judge has set-aside the

order dated 16.03.2018, passed by the Director, Elementary

Education, wherein the petitioners were denied the benefit of

their past services while calculating the period for granting

them the benefit of Assured Career Progression. The learned

Single Judge has also issued a writ of mandamus to compute

and count services of the petitioners rendered in U.P. Basic

Education Board for granting benefit of A.C.P. to them.

3. Without going into the factual matrix of these

cases, suffice it to say that on different occasions, this issue

has been raised before this Court, namely whether for getting

benefit of A.C.P., previous service rendered by the petitioner

with the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board should be

added to the period for receiving the benefit of A.C.P., or not?

4. In the case of Beer Singh Bhandari v. State of

Uttarakhand & others, [Writ Petition (S/S) No.270 of 2009,

decided on 23.12.2009], a learned Single Judge had directed

that the past services rendered by the employees in the U.P.

Basic Education Board is bound to be counted for all

purposes.

5. A similar view was also expressed by a learned

Single Judge in the case of Bachendra Prasad Kanswal &

others v. State of Uttarakhand, [Writ Petition (S/S)

No.928 of 2012, decided on 09.01.2017].

6. In the present case, the learned Advocate General

conceded that these two judgment, mentioned hereinabove,

were never challenged. Therefore, they have attained finality.

Most importantly, the learned Advocate General conceded

that the case of the present petitioners is squarely covered by

those two judgments. It is only upon such a concession being

made by the learned Advocate General, that the learned

Single Judge passed the order dated 22.10.2019.

7. Needless to say, once a concession is made, and

the order is a consensual one, no appeal can lie against the

said order.

8. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in

these special appeals, and the same are, hereby, dismissed.

(RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.)

(N.S. DHANIK, J.) Dated: 22nd November, 2021 NISHANT