Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1565/2021 on 21 February, 2022
Office Notes, reports,
SL. orders or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and Registrar's
order with Signatures
21.02.2022 WPSS No. 1565 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Mr Sachin Mohan Singh Mehta, Brief
Holder, for the State.
This writ petition has been preferred by
the petitioner on behalf of 26 petitioners, as
described in the cause title of the writ petition.
Petitioners have filed a withdrawal application,
seeking to withdraw the writ petition with
liberty to file a fresh on behalf of petitioner
no.4, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 25.
The withdrawal application preferred
by the petitioners would stand allowed. The
name of the petitioner nos.4, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23
and 25 are directed to be deleted from cause
title of the writ petition and the petitioners
would carry out the necessary amendments
within a week.
IA No. 03 of 2022, has been filed by
the respondent no.3 to 12 along with their
counter affidavits that would stand allowed.
Counter affidavits is taken on record.
IA No. 03 of 2022 stands disposed of
accordingly.
After passing of an order on
Withdrawal Application No. 02 of 2022, the
petitioners have pressed this writ petition except
for the petitioners, whose name has already
been directed to be deleted.
Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the claim of the petitioners for the
grant of the benefit of ACP, would stand
covered by the judgment of 09.07.2018, which
is a fact, vehemently opposed by the Counsel
for the State, on the ground that some of the
petitioners who were arrayed in the cause title
of the writ petition, they do not satisfy the terms
and conditions of the Government Order of
17.02.2017 and they would not fall within the
zone of consideration for the purposes extension
of benefit on M.A.C.P.S. in place of ACP
because of the condition contained in the
Government Order of 17.02.2017.
In that eventuality, each and every case
of the remaining petitioners will have to be
considered independently, based upon the
tenure of service, which has been rendered
respectively by the petitioners with the
respondents to bring them within the ambit and
zone of consideration of the Government Order
dated 17.02.2017. In that eventuality, without
expressing any opinion as to whether the claim
of the remaining petitioners stand covered by
the judgment of 09.07.2018 or not?
The counsel for the petitioners submits
that in an event if this writ petition is being
disposed of with the direction to respondent
no.3, to consider and passed an appropriate
order respectively in relation to each of the
petitioners, after considering the impact of the
Government Order dated 17.02.2017, and if
their claim fall to be within the ambit and zone
of consideration as per the ratio laid down by
the judgment of 09.07.2018, which has been
informed, that it has already been compiled with
by the respondents, the respective claim of the
petitioners would be considered and decided by
respondent no.3 within a period of two months
from the date of production of certified copy of
this order.
Subject to the aforesaid observation,
the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
21.02.2022
Nahid
