Uttarakhand High Court
CLCON/287/2022 on 10 April, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No or directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
CLCON 287/2022
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta,
Advocate, for the respondents.
In this contempt petition,
allegation is that despite the judgment
dated 30.6.2022 rendered by this Court
in WPSS No. 382 of 2021, respondent
university has rejected petitioner's claim
for compassionate appointment by
ignoring the interpretation given by this
Court to the provision contained in
Clause 1(d) of Chapter XIII of the statute
of the University.
Paragraphs 5, 9, 10 and 11 of the
judgment dated 30.6.20022 are
reproduced below:
"5. Perusal of clause 1(d) of Chapter XIII
of the Statute reveals that upon death of an
employee of the University, his dependant may be
appointed on a nonteaching post, without requiring
him to face selection. It further reveals that
appointment on compassionate ground can be
given even when an employee of the University
suffers from permanent disability during service
period. First proviso to clause 1 (d), however, puts
a condition that benefit of compassionate
appointment will be given only to dependants of
such employees, who have put in minimum three
years continuous service and further that there is
no earning member in the family.
9. This Court finds substance in the
submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioner. In view of the plain language of first
proviso of clause 1 (d) of Chapter XIII of the
Statute, the service rendered by petitioner's father
before his regularization, cannot be ignored. The
expression used in first proviso is 'continuous
service', which has been read as 'regular service'
by the University for rejecting petitioner's claim. It
is not in dispute that petitioner's father became
regular employee on 18.02.2014, however, he was
serving continuously since 1996 as daily wager.
Although, the length of service of petitioner's father
post regularization falls short of three years,
however, that cannot be a ground for rejecting
petitioner's claim in view of previous service
rendered by petitioner's father as daily wager.
10. In service jurisprudence, the
expression 'continuous service' and 'regular service'
have different connotations. The expression
'continuous service' means service rendered in an
organization, which is without any break or
interruption; while, the expression 'regular service'
means service rendered after regular
appointment/regularization as per Rules.
11. Appointment/engagement of
petitioner's father before 18.02.2014 may not be
regular, however, it cannot be said that services
rendered by him upto 18.02.2014 are not
continuous. It is not the case of the University that
there was any break in his service."
Learned Counsel for the petitioner
has taken this Court to the rejection
order. Perusal of the same reveals that
University is still sticking to its earlier
interpretation of the aforesaid provision,
which was disapproved by writ court.
Earlier, University had rejected
petitioner's claim by holding that services
rendered by petitioner's father in regular
establishment fell short of the prescribed
period of three years. Learned Counsel
for petitioner further contended that
interpretation to the statute as given in
petitioner's writ petition was approved by
Division Bench of this Court in WPSB No.
140 of 2021.
This Court is prima facie satisfied
that the interpretation given by
respondent university is contrary to the
interpretation given by writ court. The
University authorities are trying to sit in
judgment over the verdict given by this
Court. Administrative review of judicial
orders is impermissible and amounts to
contempt.
In such view of the matter, let
Vice Chancellor, Govind Ballabh Pant
University of Agriculture and Technology,
Pant Nagar remain present before this
Court on 27.4.2023 for framing of
charges.
List along with CLCON/83/2023 on
27.4.2023.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
10.4.2023
Pr
