Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/47/2022 on 30 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 47 OF 2022
30th AUGUST, 2022
Between:
High Court of Uttarakhand ...... Appellant
and
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel
Counsel for private respondent : Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned
counsel
The Court made the following:
ORDER: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The present Special Appeal is directed against
the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1440 of 2020, dated 23.11.2021.
The learned Single Judge has allowed the said writ
petition preferred by the respondent.
2) The claim of the respondent in the writ petition
was that he was initially engaged as a daily wager on
Rs.1,250/- per month in the year 2004. He was
2
appointed as a regular Chowkidar on 01.11.2006. He
was further appointed as a regular driver in the
Establishment of the High Court on 05.08.2016. In the
writ petition, which he preferred only on 05.11.2020, he
claimed that right from the inception, i.e., from 2004
onwards he is actually serving as a driver. On that
basis, he sought the difference of pay, payable to him as
a driver after adjustment of the payment made to him
initially as a daily wager from 2004 to 01.11.2006, and
thereafter from 01.11.2006 to 05.08.2016, he sought
the difference in the pay as payable to a driver and a
Chowkidar. The learned Single Judge has allowed said
claim along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
3) The submission of Mr. Miglani, learned counsel
for the appellant is that the claim made by the
respondent was highly belated and barred by delay and
laches. The respondent filed the writ petition only on
05.11.2020, while his claim related to the period 2004
onwards. He submits that there is nothing to show that
the respondent had actually worked as a driver on a
continuous basis from 2004 onwards, and mere
engagement of the respondent as a drier casually on
3
need basis, would not give him a right to claim the
wages payable to a driver.
4) On the other hand, Mr. Upadhyay, learned
counsel for the respondent, submits that the respondent
had sought the logbook of the vehicles driven by the
respondent to establish his claim that he was serving as
a driver, though he was appointed initially as a daily
wager and, thereafter, was regularized on 01.11.2006 as
a Chowkidar. That application under the Right to
Information Act was turned down on the premise that
the logbook cannot be made available, as that record is
confidential. Mr. Upadhyay submits that even though
the logbook may not have been made available, at least,
information should have been provided as to whether
the respondent has continuously served as a driver. He
submits that the record is still available with the
appellant.
5) In these circumstances, we direct the
Registrar General to file report after examining the
record, and state whether the respondent was actually
required to serve as a driver on a regular basis ever
since he was appointed as a daily wager in the year
4
2004. It should be indicated whether his services were
taken as a driver only occasionally or continuously. The
report be filed within three weeks.
6) List the matter on 12.10.2022.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
__________
R.C. Khulbe, J.
Dt: 30th AUGUST, 2022
Negi
