Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1001/2022 on 31 March, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No or directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No. 1001 of 2022
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Rajendra Arya, Advocate holding brief
of Mr. Rajendra Singh Negi, learned counsel for
the petitioners.
Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for
the State of Uttarakhand.
Petitioners were initially appointed as
Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic School, run by
U.P. Basic Education Board. They were
subsequently promoted as Assistant Teacher in
Senior Basic School on different dates. In view of
provision contained in Section 58 of Uttarakhand
School Education Act, 2006 status of
Government Servant was conferred upon them
as earlier they were employees of U.P. Basic
Education Board.
Certain benefits were given to petitioners
i.e. Selection Grade & Promotional Grade after
taking into account the services rendered by
them in basic schools run by U.P. Basic
Education Board. The said benefits were
withdrawn by the impugned order on the ground
that such benefits could have been granted upon
their adjustment in the cadre of Assistant
Teacher L.T. Grade and the excess payment
made to petitioners were directed to be
recovered.
Thus, feeling aggrieved by the impugned
order passed by Regional Additional Director,
Secondary Education, Pauri, petitioners have
approached this Court, seeking the following
relief:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the impugned letter no.
12747-54 dated 19/20-12-2018 issued by
respondent no. 3 against the petitioners
(Annexure No. 37 to this writ petition)
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the impugned letter no.
1074-76/pension/ve.ni.janch/2022-23 dated
10.05.2022 issued by respondent no. 4 against
the petitioner (Annexure No. 38 to this writ
petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has
placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by
of 2019 and has submitted that the facts of the
present case are identical to the fact involved in
the said writ petition.
Learned State Counsel was asked to get
instructions. Today, learned State Counsel has
produced written instructions received by him
from the Office of Additional Director, Pauri,
which are taken on record. Based on the said
instructions, Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned State
Counsel submits that facts of the present case
are identical to the facts of WPSS No. 175 of
2019 (Subhash Chandra vs. State of Uttarakhan
& others). He further submits that the writ
petition may be decided in terms of the
judgment dated 12.12.2020 rendered in WPSS
No. 175 of 2019.
In view of consensus between the parties
that matter is covered by the order passed in
Writ Petition No. 175 of 2019 (S/S), present writ
petition is also decided in terms of the said
order.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
31.03.2023
Aswal
