WPSS/3941/2018
2022 Latest Caselaw 1768 UK

             Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings
SL.
      Date     or directions and                     COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             Registrar's order with
                  Signatures
                                      WPSS No. 3941 of 2018
                                      Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

                                             Mr.     Vinay    Kumar,      Advocate      for    the
                                      petitioners.

Mr. P.C. Bisht, Addl. C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners were non-teaching employee of Basic Education Board, Uttar Pradesh. Upon State reorganization, they were conferred the status of Government Servants under Section 58 of Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006.

Since benefit of past services is not being given to petitioners for seniority and monetary benefits, therefore, they filed this writ petition, seeking following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to treat the date of initial/substantive appointment of the petitioners in the erstwhile Basic Education Board as the date of their substantive appointment in the education department of the State for the purposes of counting the seniority and consequently grant service benefits to the petitioners which accrued to them after merger of their service in Uttarakhand School Education Department.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from treating the date 22-04-2006 as the date of substantive appointment of the petitioners on the post of Junior Assistant in the unified cadre, in absence of any merger rules or the law made by Government prior to merger of the services of the petitioners along with all consequential service benefits."

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the issue is covered by Division Bench judgment rendered in Special Appeal No. 44 of 2010. Copy of the said judgment is enclosed as Annexure No.-8 to the writ petition.

Learned State counsel was asked to get instructions in the matter as to whether the present case is covered by aforesaid judgment rendered by Division Bench.

Learned State counsel has produced written instructions in Court received from Director, Elementary Education, which is taken on record. Perusal of written instructions, so produced, reveals that benefit of services rendered by employees of Basic Education Board, before their induction into government service, has been given to them for determining their seniority, in terms of decision of Division Bench of this Court. Thus, respondents admit that the controversy stands covered by aforesaid judgment.

Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Addl. C.S.C. also does not dispute the submission made on behalf of petitioners that issues are identical, therefore, present writ petition can be decided in terms of judgment rendered in Special Appeal No. 44 of 2010.

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of in terms of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 44 of 2010.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 14.06.2022 Navin