Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand & Others ...... ... vs Balraj Singh Negi on 10 April, 2024
Reserved Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
Reserved on : 19.03.2024
Delivered on : 10.04.2024
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 940 OF 2018
State of Uttarakhand & others ...... Appellants
Versus
Balraj Singh Negi ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 947 OF 2018
State of Uttarakhand & others ...... Appellants
Versus
Smt. Manorama Semwal ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 951 OF 2019
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Lata Tiwari ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 966 OF 2019
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Pankaj Sanwal ...... Respondent
WITH
2
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 967 OF 2019
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Harvendra Singh ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 969 OF 2019
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Pratap Singh Mer ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 970 OF 2019
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Prithvi Pal Singh Adhikari ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 982 OF 2019
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Smt. Deepa Pandey ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1035 OF 2019
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Girish Chandra Durgapal ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1041 OF 2019
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Ramesh Chandra Chamoli ...... Respondent
WITH
3
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1043 OF 2019
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Om Prakash Nautiyal ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1044 OF 2019
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Maya Nainwal ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1045 OF 2019
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Santosh Thapliyal ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1046 OF 2019
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Om Prakash Arya ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1047 OF 2019
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Bhuwneshwar Prasad Semwal ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1048 OF 2019
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Pankaj Negi ...... Respondent
WITH
4
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1049 OF 2019
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Shankar Dutt Dimri ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1050 OF 2019
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Bhuvneshwar ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1051 OF 2019
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Vijay Singh Kunjwal ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2020
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Shailendra Ballabh Malasi ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2020
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Rajesh Singh ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2020
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Kalyan Singh Dasila ...... Respondent
WITH
5
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2020
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Laxmikant ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2020
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Madan Lal Nautiyal ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2020
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Harish Chandra Joshi & another ...... Respondents
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2020
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Ravindra Prasad ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2020
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Durga Uniyal ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2020
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Rakesh Chandra ...... Respondent
WITH
6
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2020
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Munni Upadhayaya ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2020
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Khagendra Chandra Joshi ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2020
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Prakash Chandra Chauhan ...... Respondents
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2020
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Anod Kumar ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2020
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Prem Ballabh ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2020
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Smt. Nandi Bahuguna ...... Respondent
WITH
7
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2021
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Arun Kumar Panwar ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 241 OF 2021
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Kailash Chandra Chandola ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2021
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
R.P. Pandey ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 265 OF 2021
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Sanjeev Kapoor ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2021
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Mahesh Chandra ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 269 OF 2021
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Pramod Chandra Naithani ...... Respondent
WITH
8
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 281 OF 2021
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
C.S. Joshi ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 284 OF 2021
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Chandra Dutt Ghildiyal ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 285 OF 2021
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Naveen Chandra Pandey ...... Respondent
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 287 OF 2021
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Appellants
Versus
Smt. Asha Dhapola ...... Respondent
Presence:-
Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State of Uttarakhand / appellants.
Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for respondent Balraj Singh Negi in
leading SPA No. 940 of 2018, and for other respondents in
connected special appeals.
Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents in SPA Nos. 240
of 2021, 241 of 2021, 264 of 2021, 265 of 2021, 268 of 2021, 269
of 2021, 281 of 2021, 284 of 2021, 285 of 2021 and 287 of 2021.
The Court made the following:
9
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ms. Ritu Bahri)
The State has come up in this bunch of
appeals against the judgment dated 05.07.2018, passed
by learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2684
of 2015, Balraj Singh Negi Vs State of Uttarakhand and
others, whereby the writ petition filed by the
respondent-writ petitioner Balraj Singh Negi was
allowed.
2) Before further discussion it is pertinent to
mention here that various co-ordinate Benches of this
Court have disposed of majority of writ petitions in terms
of judgment dated 05.07.2018, rendered in the case of
Balraj Singh Negi, as enumerated hereinabove, feeling
aggrieved, the State has preferred these special appeals.
3) Since common question of law and facts are
involved in this bunch of appeals, therefore, they are
being decided by this common judgment for the sake of
brevity and convenience.
4) Appellants are the respondents in the writ
petitions. The writ petitioners are persons, who were
working in various Industrial Training Institutes
established under the State. Originally, they were
working as Prashikshan Mitras. Subsequently, it is their
case that they have been confirmed / appointed by
regular selection. The issue, which is raised in the writ
petitions, appears to be that they are denied
continuation of service from the date they got
appointment as Prashikshan Mitras till regularization of
their services / appointment by regular selection.
Feeling aggrieved, they filed separate writ petitions,
which have led to the present bunch of appeals before
this Court. Special Appeal No. 940 of 2018 shall be
treated as a leading case for the sake of brevity.
5) Brief facts of the case are that respondent-writ
petitioner Balraj Singh Negi was appointed as
Prashikshan Mitra vide order dated 07.03.2002 on the
basis of his qualification against the post of Instructor.
Subsequently, an advertisement was issued by the
appellants on 21.02.2010 for filling up the post of
Instructor, I.T.I. Motor Mechanic. After participating in
the selection process, the respondent-writ petitioner was
found suitable and got appointed on said post, on
17.12.2010. The similarly situated persons, who were
appointed as Prashikshan Mitras were regularized in the
year 2013-2014. Respondent-writ petitioner, though
was selected on 21.02.2010, but got appointment on
17.12.2014.
6) The only question for consideration before the
learned Single Judge was whether the continuous service
rendered by the respondent-writ petitioner from
07.03.2002 till his appointment as Instructor, I.T.I.
Motor Mechanic on 17.12.2014, has to be counted for
pensionary purposes by the appellant State, or not? The
writ petition was allowed and a direction was given to
the State to count the services rendered by the
respondent-writ petitioner w.e.f. 07.03.2002 till his
appointment as Instructor, I.T.I. Motor Mechanic on
17.12.2014 for all intents and purposes keeping in view
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2018 SC
233, Sheo Narain Nagar & others Vs State of Uttar
Pradesh and others.
7) The main ground taken by counsel for the
State in the present appeal is that once the respondent-
writ petitioner was appointed on regular basis on
17.12.2014, he could not be given any benefit of the
past services, and reliance of the learned Single Judge
on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheo
Narain Nagar's case (supra) is on different facts, and
respondent cannot get the benefit of said judgment
because in that case the employee had been appointed
in the year 1993, and he was given temporary status on
02.10.2002, and after the judgment in Secretary, State
of Karnataka & others Vs Uma Devi & others, 2006 (4)
SCC 01, he had completed 10 years of service on the
date when he was given temporary status, i.e.,
02.10.2002, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had given
directions that his services be regularized w.e.f.
02.10.2002 with all consequential benefits and arrears of
salary.
8) The facts of the present case are that the
respondent-writ petitioner was given regular
appointment in 2014 after participating in the selection
process pursuant to the advertisement dated
21.02.2010, and he cannot claim parity of benefit of
regularization at par with other persons, who were
regularized in the year 2013-2014. It is the ratio of the
Supreme Court judgment which has to be applied. The
respondent-writ petitioner in the present case is claiming
parity. He was appointed on 07.03.2002, and as per the
regularization policy, the persons who were appointed
along with him were regularized in the year 2013-2014,
and pursuant to the selection made in the year 2010, he
was given appointment on 17.12.2014. Even if he was
given appointment on 17.12.2014, he has been working
continuously from 07.03.2002 till 17.12.2014 after
regular selection also on 21.02.2010. Hence, the
services rendered by the respondent-writ petitioner from
07.03.2002 till 17.12.2014 cannot be taken away for the
purpose of consequential benefits. Had the respondent-
writ petitioner been appointed in 2010, he had
completed only 10 years after his initial appointment,
and he cannot claim benefit of the past services. Since
he was regularized on 17.12.2014, the benefit of past
service has to be given and the writ petition has been
rightly allowed. However, the benefit which the
respondent-writ petitioner has to be given is only with
respect to counting the past services for fixation of
pension only.
9) Keeping in view the judgments rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Minor Irrigation
Department and others Vs Narendra Kumar Tripathi,
(2015) 11 SCC 80, as well as in recently pronounced
judgment in the case of Rashi Mani Mishra and others
Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2021 0 Supreme
(SC) 387, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
consistently held that the seniority of a person has to be
counted from the date of substantive appointment. His
ad hoc appointment prior to the date of substantive
appointment cannot be made ground to give him benefit
of seniority. The only benefit which a person can take is
that his services from ad hoc before he was substantially
appointed or regularized will be counted for the benefit
of pension.
10) The past services rendered by a contractual
employee had to be taken into account for the purpose
of pension only. This proposition has already been
considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Himachal Pradesh and others Vs Sheela Devi, SLP (C)
No. 10399 of 2020, decided on 07.08.2023, while
upholding the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High
Court relying upon Rule 17(2) of CCS Pension Rules
holding that Rule 17 was engrafted essentially to cater to
the eventuality where the employees working on
contract basis were regularized on a later stage. It is
only for the purpose of pension that the past services as
contractual employee is to be taken into account.
11) Similar view has also been taken by Punjab
and Haryana High Court in the case of Som Nath and
others Vs State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 1432 of
2012, along with batch of writ petitions, decided on
23.01.2013, holding that the entire daily wage service of
an employee from 1988 till the date of his regularization
is to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of
pension.
12) In view of the aforesaid, impugned judgment
dated 05.07.2018, rendered by learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2684 of 2015, Balraj Singh Negi
Vs State of Uttarakhand and others, is modified only
with respect to the consequential benefit. The benefit of
service rendered by the respondent-writ petitioner Balraj
Singh Negi prior to his regular appointment, i.e.,
17.12.2014 will be counted only for the purpose of
pension. The said benefit will also be applicable in the
cases of other respondents-writ petitioners in this bunch
of appeals for the purpose of pension only.
13) With the modification as above, all the
special appeals stands disposed of.
______________
RITU BAHRI, C.J.
________________
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Dt: 10TH APRIL, 2024
Negi
