SPA/294/2021
2022 Latest Caselaw 1235 UK

               Office Notes,
              reports, orders
SL.           or proceedings
      Date                                       COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No           or directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                 SPA No. 292 of 2021
                                 SPA No. 293 of 2021
                                 SPA No. 294 of 2021
                                 Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 in the appeals.

Mr. Anil K. Bisht, Additional C.S.C. and Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these appeals, therefore these appeals are clubbed together and are being heard & decided together. However, for the sake of convenience, facts of SPA No. 292 of 2021 are being considered.

In this Appeal, appellant has challenged the final order dated 30.07.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby writ petition filed by respondent no. 1 was disposed of in terms of judgment dated 29.07.2021 rendered in WPSS No. 921 of 2021.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although learned Single Judge directed State Government to take decision on writ petitioners' representation, however, a rider was added that decision is to be taken in the light of judgments, which are referred in the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not questioning the final order passed by learned Single Judge on merits and the only reason for filing the appeal is that the rider may be removed and the Competent Authority in the State Government be directed to take decision as per law, untrammelled by any observation made in the order, impugned in this appeal.

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/ respondent no. 1 submits that he has no objection if the impugned order is modified to the extent, prayed by learned counsel for the appellant. He further points out that since Board of Directors of Bridge, Ropeway, Tunnel and Other Infrastructure Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd. (BRIDCUL) had passed a resolution in its 28th meeting held on 21.07.2017 to grant regular scale to such contract employees appointed by selection who have successfully completed 2 consecutive years with excellent remarks in A.C.R., therefore, the Competent Authority in the State Government may be directed to take decision independently in the light of the said recommendation.

Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the claim of the writ petitioners (respondents herein), this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met, if petitioner(s) is permitted to approach the Competent Authority by making a representation, which shall be decided within some specified time frame.

In such view of the matter, the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is modified and it is provided that the writ petitioner(s) (respondent herein) shall be at liberty to make fresh representation to the Competent Authority in the State Government for grant of regular scale/regularization of services. If such representation is made, within two weeks, Competent Authority shall independently take decision thereupon, as per law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of representation with certified copy of this order.

The Special Appeals are, disposed of, accordingly.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 19.04.2022 Arpan