Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others ... on 1 September, 2023
CLCON No. 17 of 2023
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Ms. Beena Pande, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Mr. J.S. Bisht, Standing Counsel for
the State/respondents.
Heard.
The petitioners have brought to the
notice of the Court, the non compliance
of the judgment and order dated
05.08.2022, passed in Writ Petition (S/S)
No. 70 of 2016, Satya Prakash and others
Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others ("the
petition").
A response affidavit has been filed.
It is the case of the petitioners that
they have been working in the Group IV
posts in the Treasuries. Initially, when
they joined their services, there were
promotional avenues. But subsequently,
after change in the Rules in the year
2003, the cadre was declared as dying
cadre. Resultantly, the petitioners lost
the opportunity of promotion. By the
impugned judgment and order, the
petition was decided, in terms of
judgment dated 17.12.2015, passed by
this Court, in WPSS No. 320 of 2014,
Lalit Singh Kharayat Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and others. In Lalit Singh's
Judgment, in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, the
Court has held as hereunder:-
"6. Another fact which has been
brought to the notice of this Court was
that the amended rules were brought on
25.06.2013 whereas in Udham Singh
Nagar Treasury a post of Accounts Clerk
fell vacant on 22.06.2013 i.e. prior to two
days when this amended rules had not
become effective. Therefore, there was a
post available to the petitioner in any case
on 22.06.2013, thereafter the post itself
has merged with the post of Assistant
Accountant.
7. Be that as it may, the fact
remains that the respondents must frame
scheme giving fair chance of promotion to
the petitioner, which can only now be
done to the post of Assistant Accountant.
This Court has been informed that there
are total 326 posts of Assistant
Accountant in the different Treasuries in
Uttarakhand are vacant. The Government
can fix certain percentage of posts for
promotion from eligible Class-IV
employees, after fixing a prescribed
qualification and if need be a qualifying
test, so that eligible and competent
candidate may be given opportunity of
promotion to that post.
8. Let the needful be done as
expeditiously as possible, though no
interference is being made in the amended
Rules of 2003."
It has been the case of the
petitioners that the judgment and order
of the Court has not been complied with.
A compliance affidavit has been filed
by the State. According to the State, a
scheme for promotion had already been
framed by the State of Uttarakhand in
the year 2023. The petitioners did
participate in the promotional exercise,
but they could not qualify it.
Learned counsel for the petitioners
would very fairly concede that the scheme
has been framed by the
respondents/State pursuant to the order
dated 05.08.2022, passed in the petition.
She would submit that the machine on
which the petitioners were required to
give typing test was not functional
properly; its keyboard was defective, of
which a complaint has been made by the
petitioners.
By virtue of judgement and order
dated 05.08.2022, the Court had directed
the respondents/State to frame a scheme
for opening promotional avenues for the
petitioners. The scheme has been
formulated and the compliance has been
made. It cannot be said that it is a case of
wilful disobedience. If in the promotional
exercise, in the typing test, there were
some errors or the machines that were
provided to the petitioners that may give
life to the another cause of action to the
petitioners, but that cannot be decided in
the instant contempt petition.
Having considered, this Court is of
the view that nothing survives in this
petition. It stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
01.09.2023
Jitendra
