Uttarakhand High Court
Dr. Virendra Pratap Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 5 July, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 260 of 2018
Dr. Virendra Pratap Singh ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
Coram : Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the
following relief:-
"i. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash and set
aside the judgment and order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the learned
Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal at Dehradun in Claim Petition
No.13/DB/2017 titled as Dr. R.P. Bahuguna and others Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and others, whereby the claim petition of petitioner has been
dismissed disallowed and consequently the claim petition filed by the
petitioner may be allowed."
2. Petitioner along with four other officers of Animal
Husbandry Department approached Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") claiming benefit of IIIrd A.C.P., by
contending that he completed required 26 years of service on 10.01.1998,
therefore he became eligible for IIIrd A.C.P. on 01.01.2006. His claim
was denied by the Tribunal by holding that petitioner was given three
promotions before 01.01.2006, therefore he is not entitled to get IIIrd
A.C.P. Observation to this effect has been made in para nos.10 and 17 of
the impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that claim
petition was allowed qua other four persons and petitioners claim alone
was disallowed. He further submits that observation made in para nos.10
and 17 of the impugned judgment that petitioner was promoted thrice, is
factually incorrect. He submits that another person with similar name i.e.,
Dr. Vishwapal Singh, who retired as Additional Director on 31.12.2009,
earned three promotions, but due to confusion, petitioner's claim was
erroneously disallowed by learned Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner
was appointed as Veterinary Officer and he was promoted to the post of
Deputy Director and no other promotion was given to him in his entire
career while Dr. Vishwapal Singh, who retired on 31.12.2009 was given
three promotions, initially to the post of Deputy Director, then Joint
Director and lastly as Additional Director.
5. Learned State counsel was asked to get instructions on the
aforesaid aspect.
6. Today, Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State has produced, in Court, written instructions
received by him from Director, Animal Husbandry Department, which
are taken on record.
7. Perusal of the instructions reveals that petitioner, (Dr.
Virendra Pratap Singh) was appointed as Veterinary Officer on
28.01.1970; he was given only one promotion as Deputy Director on
17.07.2003; and thereafter, he retired on 31.07.2007. The other person
named Dr. Vishwapal Singh was appointed as Veterinary Officer on
28.01.1970, he was first promoted as Deputy Director on 16.06.2006 and
thereafter he was promoted as Joint Director on 30.03.2008 and lastly he
was promoted as Additional Director on 25.07.2008. Thus the contention
that the ground taken for disallowing petitioner's claim is factually
incorrect, appears to be correct.
8. The information supplied by Director, Animal Husbandry
reveals that petitioner was given only one promotion, thus the finding
recorded by learned Tribunal for denying his claim is erroneous. The
claim petition was filed by five persons, which was allowed qua other
four persons and was dismissed qua the petitioner on the ground that he
has been given three promotions. In such view of the matter, a limited
interference with the impugned judgment would be warranted.
9. Accordingly, the finding recorded in para nos.10 and 17 of
the impugned judgment in respect of petitioner is set aside and the claim
petition is allowed qua the petitioner also. Secretary, Animal Husbandry
Department is directed to examine petitioner's claim for IIIrd A.C.P. as
per law within eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy
of this order.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
05.07.2024
SK
