Uttarakhand Collectorate ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2337 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                   NAINITAL

       THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
                       AND
      JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE

                         28TH JULY, 2022

                WP(S/B) No.192 OF 2021

Uttarakhand Collectorate Ministerial Karmchari Sangh and
Another
                                          ...... Petitioners
                           Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others            ...... Respondents


Presence: -
Shri Shivanand Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Pradeep Joshi, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State.

JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.)


           In this petition, petitioners have prayed for the

following relief(s): -

               "I. Issue a writ order or direction in the
               nature of Certiorari quashing the
               impugned     order    dated     24.3.2021
               (Annexure-4) passed by respondent
               no.2.

               II. Issue a writ order or direction in the
               nature of mandamus commanding and
               directing the respondent no.2 to decide
               the     representation    of     petitioner
               association within stipulated time as
               deem fit and proper by this Hon'ble
               Court.

               III. to pass any other order or direction
               which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
               and     proper   in   the    facts   and
               circumstances of the present case."
 2.        It     is    argued        by      learned        counsel        for    the

petitioners that, as per Rule 355 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue

Manual,   the     Chief      Administrative               Officers    or     Senior

Administrative Officers are entitled to hold the charge of

Tehsildar or Naib Tehsildar. Accordingly, Commissioner

/Secretary Board of Revenue Uttarakhand, Dehradun

issued order directing all the DMs of Uttarakhand that in

absence    of     Tehsildar         or       Naib-Tehsildar,         the         Chief

Administrative Officer/Senior Administrative Officer will

look after the duties of the said posts, except the Judicial

work. Now, respondent no.2 under pressure of some

group of the employees has cancelled the above order,

vide its order dated 24.03.2021, which is illegal and liable

to be set aside.

3.        We          have    heard          learned        counsel        for    the

petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State.

4.        Rule 355 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Manual

is extracted as under:-

          "355. uk;c rglhynkj] rglhynkj ds vius eq[;ky; ds vuqifLFkr jgus

          ds nkSjku rglhy dk;kZy; rFkk dks'kkxkj ds izHkkj esa gksxkA rglhyksa esa]

          tgka uk;c rglhynkj fu;qDr ugha gS] jktLo ys[kkdkj rglhynkj dh

          vuqifLFkfr esa ,sls izHkkj dks xzg.k djsxkA"

5.        From the perusal of the above Rule, it is clear

that,   during        the    absence          of         Tehsildar    from         his


                                         2
 headquarter, the Naib Tehsildar will be In-charge of the

Tehsil Office and the Treasury. In Tehsils, where no Naib

Tehsildar is posted, the Revenue Accountant will hold such

charge in absence of Tehsildar.

6.        From      the   perusal     of   the   order   dated

09.02.2021, it is clear that the Commissioner/ Secretary,

Revenue Board, Uttarakhand did not issue the order as

per Rule 355 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Manual.

Accordingly, on 24.03.2021, by the impugned order, the

Commissioner/ Secretary, Revenue Board has cancelled

the above order issued on 09.02.2021.

7.        Admittedly, the writ-petitioners are leaders of

Uttarakhand Collectorate Ministerial Sangh. The posts

Chief Administrative Officer/ Senior Administrative Officer

are not mentioned in Rule 355. Only 'Revenue Accountant'

is mentioned in the Rule. The Revenue Officers as

mentioned in the Rule are not the party before us.

Accordingly, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on

the following grounds:-

          A)   The    order   dated    09.02.2021    was   not

          issued as per the Rule 355 of U.P. Revenue

          Manual.

          B)   The Rule 355 of the U.P. Revenue Manual

          does not authorize Chief Administrative Officers


                              3
            or Senior Administrative Officers to take charge

           of Tehsildar or Naib Tehsildar in their absence.

           C)   The      order        dated    09.02.2021       and

           cancellation order dated 24.03.2021 issued by

           Commissioner/ Secretary, Revenue Board in his

           administrative        capacity,     accordingly,      the

           petitioners have no legal right to challenge the

           impugned order.

8.         In view of the above observations, there is no

illegality in the impugned order dated 24.03.2021 passed

by   the   Commissioner      /    Secretary,    Revenue       Board,

Uttarakhand. The present writ-petition is bereft of merits

and, accordingly, the same is dismissed.

9.         I n seque l thereto , al l pendin g applications

stand disposed of.


                                         ________________
                                          VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.



                             _______________________
                            RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.

Dated: 28th July, 2022 SS