Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/23/2023 on 21 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2023
21ST FEBRUARY, 2023
BETWEEN:
Balam Singh Negi .....Appellant.
And
State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Amish Tewari, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned
Deputy Advocate General.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The present special appeal is directed against the
order dated 14.12.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge,
in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2351 of 2022. The said writ petition
preferred by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned
Single Judge on merits, as well as on account of delay and
laches in preferring the said writ petition.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant claimed
that he was serving as a Class-IV employee in a Government
Aided Institution since 1997. Admittedly, the said school was
provincialized in the year 2012. Subsequently, vide order
dated 19.12.2013, the Chief Education Officer, Almora
absorbed the appellant in Government service w.e.f.
01.09.2012. After over ten years of his being absorbed in
government service, w.e.f. 01.09.2012, the appellant
preferred the aforesaid writ petition challenging the order
dated 19.12.2013, issued by respondent No.3, which stated
that he was being appointed as a temporary government
employee in the Institution after provincialization of the
same. The appellant also sought a direction to the
respondents to treat his initial date of appointment in the
year 1997 in the erstwhile Government Aided Management
School, as the date of his substantive appointment for the
purposes of computing his benefits under the ACP Scheme/
pay fixation and promotion.
3. The learned Single Judge has not found merit in
this claim of the appellant-writ petitioner, while observing
that since the Institution was provincialized w.e.f.
01.09.2012, therefore, the appellant's prayer for his
absorption as a Government employee anterior to the date
when the Institution was provincialized, is without any legal
basis. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the
writ petition was preferred highly belatedly.
4. So far as the merits are concerned, learned counsel
for the appellant seeks to rely upon a judgment of this Court
in Beer Singh Bhandari vs. State of Uttarakhand &
others, Writ Petition No.270 of 2009 (S/S), decided on
23.12.2009.
5. We have perused the said judgment which is placed
on record along with the writ record. The said judgment has
absolutely no application to the facts of the present case. In
that case, the writ petitioner was already serving as a
government employee since 21.10.1971. The position in the
present case is entirely different. The appellant was not in
government service from 1997 when he claimed to have
joined the said Institution, which was a Government Aided
Management School.
6. In our view, it would be absurd for anyone to claim
that his absorption as a government employee should relate
back to the date of his initial appointment in the Government
Aided Management School, even though, the takeover/
provincialization of the Management School has taken place
decades later. We also find that the writ petition itself was
highly belated inasmuch, as, the order dated 19.12.2013,
which, in turn, stated that the appointment as a government
servant would be on a temporary basis, was not put to
challenge by the appellant for over nine years after its
issuance, and there is no explanation therefor.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit
in the present special appeal, and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)
(ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.)
Dated: 21st February, 2023
NISHANT
