Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/3872/1990 on 13 March, 2023
Office Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
and
Registrar's
order with
Signatures
13.03.2023
WPSB No. 39 of 2001
(Old No. 3872 of 1990)
Hon'ble Vipin Sanghi, C.J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State of Uttarakhand.
MCC No. 9114 of 2022
By this Application, the petitioner seeks
modification of the judgment dated 17.07.2019
insofar as the relief was granted to the petitioner
by the said judgment. Para-12 of the said
judgment reads as follows:-
"12. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of
this case, and as all the above referred
complexities have arisen only because of the
pendency of this Writ Petition for the past
nearly 30 years, we direct the second
respondent (Chief Education Officer, Pauri
Garhwal) to collect, from the Janta Inter
College, Pauri Garhwal, the service records of
the petitioner, and forward them to the
Secretary (Education), Government of
Uttarakhand. The Secretary (Education) shall,
on receipt of the records from the Chief
Education Officer, Pauri Garhwal, request the
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission to
undertake the exercise of considering the
petitioner's claim for promotion as a Lecturer,
from the date on which the fourth respondent
was promoted as a Lecturer, after ascertaining
whether the adverse entries were made in the
service record after the petitioner was
informed thereof, and 7 whether he was given
an opportunity of being heard in this regard;
and after satisfying themselves that petitioner
had obtained approval of the Committee of
Management before prosecuting his Post-
graduate degree in Sanskrit. Needless to state
that, in case the Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission recommends the candidature of
the petitioner for promotion as a Lecturer, in
the place of the fourth respondent, in 1989, he
shall be extended the notional benefits which
he was entitled to as a Lecturer, from 1989 till
he was actually promoted as a Lecturer. His
pensionary benefits shall be revised, and he
shall be paid revised pension on the basis of
the enhanced pay he would have been entitled
to consequent on his being granted notional
fitment from the year 1989. The petitioner
shall only be entitled for notional fitment,
and not for arrears of salary (on the
application of the principle of no-work-no-
pay), even if the Public Service
Commission recommends his candidature
for promotion as a Lecturer from 1989. We
hope and trust that the entire exercise is
completed early, since the petitioner's claim for
promotion as a Lecturer relates to the year
1989, nearly three decades ago."
(Emphasis supplied)
It appears that in compliance of the aforesaid
judgment, the Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission recommended in favour of the
petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of
Lecturer from the year 1989, when the respondent
No. 4 was promoted to the said post.
The petitioner, by this Application, seeks
modification of the aforesaid order, by contending
that the petitioner should get the actual arrears of
pay for the post of Lecturer from 1989 to 3rd
September, 2004, on which date, he was promoted
to the post of Lecturer.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the grant of only notional fitment for pension to the
petitioner, for the period from 1989 till September
2004 is unfair, since a finding has now been
returned on the recommendation of the
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission in favour of
the petitioner, that he was entitled to be promoted
to the post of Lecturer in the year 1989 itself.
We have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and we do not find any merit in this
Application. The Court-when it passed the
judgment dated 17.07.2019, consciously and for
reasons recorded by it denied actual arrears in the
post of Lecturer to the petitioner, even if he was
held to be entitled to be promoted to the said post
in the year 1989, on the principle of 'No Work No
Pay'.
If the petitioner was aggrieved by the said
direction issued by the Division Bench, it was for
the petitioner to avail of his remedies at that stage.
The petitioner, having accepted the judgment dated
17.07.2019, cannot now seek modification of the
aforesaid directions issued by the Court.
We, therefore, do not find any merit in this
Application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J) (Vipin Sanghi, CJ)
13.03.2023 13.03.2023
Rathour
