Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/371/2018 on 15 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
15TH NOVEMBER, 2022
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 371 OF 2018
Between:
Executive Engineer, Northern Division Ganga
Canal, Irrigation Deptt. of U.P & others. ...Appellants.
and
Shri Rampal. ...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Standing
Counsel for the State of U.P.
Counsel for the respondent : Ms. Neetu Singh, learned counsel.
JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
Delay Condonation Application (CLMA No. 6511 of 2018)
The appellants seek condonation of delay of 44
days' in filing the present Special Appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsels.
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same
is allowed. Delay is condoned subject to cost of ` 1,000/- to
be paid to the respondents. The cost be paid within two
weeks.
1
4. The present Special Appeal is directed against the
order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in
two writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1152 of 2012 &
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 713 of 2012. The impugned order is
short, and reads as follows:-
"Since common questions of law and facts are
involved in the above-numbered writ petitions, hence the
same are being taken up together and disposed of by this
common order. In order to maintain clarity, the facts of
WPSS No.1152 of 2012 have been taken into
consideration.
Petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis. He
was made work-charge employee w.e.f. 1997. He was
regularized in the year 2005. Petitioner, at the time, when
he was conferred work-charge to regular status was
governed by GPF (old pension scheme). However, vide
notification dated 06.05.2010, Government has decided to
cover him under Contributory Provident Fund (CPF). The
order dated 06.05.2010 cannot be applied retrospectively
to destroy the vested and acquired rights to be covered
under the GPF scheme. The law looks forward.
Petitioner was covered under GPF scheme and could
not be brought in under the CPF scheme to his detriment.
Petitioner may have been regularized on 06.05.2005 but
he was given work-charge status w.e.f. 21.05.1997. The
notification dated 06.05.2010 would apply prospectively
and not retrospectively.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed.
2
Impugned order dated 06.05.2010 is quashed and set-
aside."
5. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the
stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit has
not been adverted to.
6. Learned counsel for the writ-petitioner seeks to
place reliance upon an order passed by the Supreme Court in
'Habib Khan v. State of Uttarakhand & others', Civil
Appeal No.(s) 10806 of 2017, on 23.08.2017. The effect
of the said judgment, and any other judgments, which may
be relevant, has also not been considered.
7. In our view, the learned Single Judge has not
thrashed out the issues, which arose for consideration with
due application of mind.
8. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and
remand the matter back to the learned Single Judge for re-
consideration of the issue, whether the writ-petitioner would
be entitled to be covered under the G.P.F. Scheme, having
been regularized on or after 01.04.2005, when the
Government Policy was framed that persons regularly
appointed in service after 01.04.2005, would be covered by
the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, and not by the Old
Pension Scheme i.e. the G.P.F. Scheme. The effect of the
3
judgment in Habib Khan (supra) would also need
consideration.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge.
10. The Special Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
11. In sequel thereto, all pending applications, stand
disposed of.
___________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C. J.
______________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
Dt: 15.11.2022
A/NT
