Uttarakhand High Court
Bhuwan Chandra Joshi And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 28 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO.129 OF 2022
28TH MARCH, 2022
Between:
Bhuwan Chandra Joshi and others ...... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the
following
JUDGMENT: (per the Justice Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
Petitioners have challenged the judgment
dated 07.12.2021 passed by Public Service Tribunal,
Dehradun in Claim Petition No. 124/DB of 2021. By the
said judgment, learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim
petition filed by petitioners challenging absorption of
private respondent on the ground of delay and laches.
2. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that
petitioners had challenged orders of absorption passed in
favour of respondent nos. 2 to 6 between the years
2002-2011. The absorption orders were passed by the
Competent Authority in exercise of power under statutory
rules framed by State Government under proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out
that respondent nos. 2 to 6 were earlier serving in
subordinate offices of the State Government, who were
required to serve in Secretariat, immediately after State
reorganization in view of shortage of employees in the
Secretariat. He further submits that petitioners, on the
other hand, were appointed by direct recruitment as
Group-D employees in the Secretariat services. He
further submits that private respondents were not eligible
for absorption in Secretariat services; they obtained
absorption orders by playing fraud, therefore, their
absorption may be set aside.
4. From the submission made on behalf of the
petitioners, it is revealed that petitioners woke up for
challenging the absorption order of private respondents
only when private respondents became strong contender
for promotion to the post of Section Officer. Some of the
private respondents were absorbed as far back in the
year 2002 and the claim petition was filed by the
petitioners in the year 2021.
5. Since there is inordinate delay of more than 15
years in challenging the absorption orders passed in
favour of the private respondents, therefore, the learned
Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by the
petitioners on the ground of delay and laches.
6. We have gone through the judgment rendered
by learned Tribunal, in which reference has been made to
2
the relevant provision of U.P. Public Service Tribunal Act,
1976, which provides limitation of one year for
approaching the Tribunal. Relevant provision of other
statutes have also been considered and discussed in
great detail in the impugned judgment.
7. We concur with the reasoning given by the
learned Tribunal for dismissing the claim petition of the
petitioner. Even otherwise also, private respondents were
absorbed in Secretariat services between the years 2002-
11 and they continued as member of Secretariat services
for more than a decade and equities have ensued in their
favour. Thus challenge to absorption of private
respondents at this belated stage could not have been
entertained. Upon their absorption, a vested right
accrued in favour of private respondents. The absorption
order could have been challenged by the petitioners
within a reasonable time, as both petitioners and private
respondents were serving in Uttarakhand Secretariat at
Dehradun. Challenge to absorption of respondents at this
belated stage in order to divest them of their status as
Secretariat employee, if entertained, would result in
miscarriage of justice.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meena
Sharma Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others
(2020) 15 SCC 648, has held that delay of four years in
challenging order of appointment is fatal. Similar view
has been expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of S. Sumnyan and Others Vs. Limi Niri and Others,
(2010) 6 SCC 791.
9. In such view of the matter, we do not find any
error in the judgment rendered by learned Tribunal,
3
which may warrant interference by this Court.
10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and is
dismissed.
___________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
______________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 28th MARCH, 2022
BS/SS
