Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/549/2020 on 2 August, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No or directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS 551/2020
With
WPSS 549/2020
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Prabhat Bohra, Advocate, for the
petitioners.
Ms. Mamta Bisht, Deputy Advocate
General, for the State.
Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht,
Advocate, for the intervener.
Intervention applications
(IA/6323/2022 and IA/10080/2022) are
allowed.
Amended memos of parties be
supplied during the course of the day.
Heard learned Counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
Since controversy involved in both
the writ petitions is one and the same,
these are being decided together by this
common judgment and order. For brevity,
facts of Writ Petition No. 551 of 2020 (S/S)
are being referred.
Petitioner was appointed in Health
Department in District Saharanpur as Health
Worker (Female) on 21.11.1985. District
Saharanpur was reorganised and District
Haridwar came into being on 1.7.1990 and
services of petitioner were transferred from
District Saharanpur to District Haridwar and
she joined duties in Haridwar District on
01.07.1990.
It is not in dispute that petitioner is
serving in District Haridwar ever since
01.07.1990. Since petitioner has been
denied benefit of services rendered in
District Saharanpur between 21.01.1985 till
30.06.1990 for the purpose of seniority and
her name did not find place in the list of
persons who were being considered for
promotion to the next higher post,
therefore, she has filed this writ petition.
A counter affidavit has been filed in
which it is admitted that petitioner was
appointed in District Saharanpur on
22.01.1985 and upon her transfer, she
joined duties in District Haridwar on
01.07.1990. However, in para 5 of the
counter affidavit, it is stated that since
petitioner was transferred to District
Haridwar from District Saharanpur on
request, therefore, her name was placed at
the bottom of seniority list on the date of
her joining in District Haridwar. However,
no material has been brought on record to
substantiate this statement. Although
petitioner's service book has been enclosed
as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit,
however, it also does not indicate that
petitioner's transfer to Haridwar was on
request.
Learned State Counsel contends that
since Health Worker (Female) is a District
Cadre Post and petitioner came on transfer
to District Haridwar from District
Saharanpur, therefore, she is not entitled to
benefit of her services rendered in District
Saharanpur.
The said contention is bereft of
merit. Even though the post of Health
Worker (Female) is a District Cadre Post,
however, petitioner came on transfer to
Haridwar due to reorganisation of the
District, where she was appointed. Due to
bifurcation of Saharanpur, employees
serving in said District had the right of
choosing either of the two Districts. An
employee, who opted for serving in District
Haridwar, cannot be denied benefit of
his/her past services on the ground that the
post he/she was holding in the erstwhile
District Saharanpur was a District Cadre
Post.
It is not a normal case of transfer of
an employee from one District to another,
where an employee may loose seniority if
transferred on request. Here is the case in
which the Cadre of Health Worker (Female)
was reorganised due to reorganisation of a
district, therefore, benefit of past services
rendered in a district, which was
reorganised, cannot be denied if a person is
transferred to the new district created due
to such reorganisation.
It is not in dispute that Members of
District Cadre Service of Saharanpur were
serving within territorial limits of Haridwar
tehsil upto 30.6.1990. With the creation of
new District Haridwar, the Cadre of Health
Worker (Female) was also reorganised, and
based on options, Members of said cadre
were allotted to District Saharanpur or
District Haridwar, as the case may be.
In such a situation, Member of a
District Level Cadre could not have been
denied benefit of services rendered in
District Saharanpur, as it existed before
reorganisation.
Thus, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that petitioners' seniority should
have been determined by taking into
account her services rendered in District
Saharanpur and denial of said benefit to the
petitioners is unjust.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ
petitions are partly allowed to the extent of
granting benefit of services rendered by
them before 1.7.1990 for the purpose of
seniority to petitioners. Chief Medical
Officer, Haridwar is directed to redetermine
petitioners' seniority, in the light of
observations made above, within six weeks,
after inviting objections from other
Members of the Cadre, whose seniority is
likely to be affected.
Till redetermination of petitioners'
seniority, exercise for promotion to the post
of Health Supervisor (Female) shall be kept
on hold.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
2.8.2022
Pr
