Uttarakhand High Court
Rekha Koranga vs Union Of India And Others on 21 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS RITU BAHRI
AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI ALOK KUMAR VERMA
21ST MARCH, 2024
SPECIAL APPEAL NO.395 OF 2021
Rekha Koranga ...... Appellant
Vs.
Union of India and others ......Respondents
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO.397 OF 2021
Hav Kundan Singh ...... Appellant
Vs.
Union of India and others ......Respondents
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO.398 OF 2021
Raghubeer Singh ...... Appellant
Vs.
Union of India and others ......Respondents
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 399 of 2021
Chandan Singh ...... Appellant
Vs.
Union of India and others ......Respondents
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO.401 OF 2021
Harshit Sah ...... Appellant
Vs.
Union of India and others ......Respondents
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO.402 OF 2021
Aman Sinhal ...... Appellant
Vs.
Union of India and others ......Respondents
2
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO.403 OF 2021
Amit Dasila ...... Appellant
Vs.
Union of India and others ......Respondents
WITH
SPECIAL APPEAL NO.38 of 2022
Amit Kumar Joshi ...... Appellant
Vs.
Union of India and others ......Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Alok Mahra, Advocate.
Mr. B.N. Molakhi, Advocate.
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan,
Standing Counsel.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this
Court made the following judgment :
(Per : Ms. Ritu Bahri, C. J.)
This bunch of Special Appeals involved a common
question, hence, these Special Appeals are being decided by
a common judgment. For brevity, facts of Special Appeal
No. 395 of 2021, are being taken into consideration.
2. The appellant has come up in the Appeal against
the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10th
September, 2021, whereby, his prayer to allow him to
continue to serve under the Ex-Servicemen Contributory
Health Scheme (ECHS), has been dismissed.
3. The short question for consideration in the
present Special Appeals is that the petitioner-appellant was
3
appointed in the year 2015 and has been dis-continued to
work after 2018. The relevant instructions, which had been
made applicable to work under the Ex-Servicemen
Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) is Annexure-4, page 34
of the Writ Petition.
4. These are the instructions dated 22nd December,
2017, and as per Clause 8, 9 and 10, the term, how long a
person can work on the post, has been clarified. The
duration of the contractual employment has been two years,
whereas, the second year's extension is granted based on
the specific performance of the first year. The petitioner-
appellant in the present case was appointed in the year
2015 and has continued to work till 2018. Hence, for all
practical purposes, the term of the petitioner-appellant was
extended after one year. As per clause-10, the enhanced
duration as per the letter dated 24th May, 2011, will not be
applicable w.e.f. 1st April, 2018.
5. Hence, the petitioner-appellant now cannot claim
benefit of the extension of the services as per the Circular
dated 24th May, 2011, Annexure-3. Clause-10 further
provided that all contractual employees, who had completed
two years as on 31st May, 2018, will have to mandatorily
apply afresh, if they want to work on the contractual basis.
It further provided that they will participate under the
selection process on merits.
4
6. On this ground itself, the petitioner-appellant
cannot continue to work after 2018, because Clause-10
provides that they have to participate in the selection
process after 31st March, 2018.
7. On a specific query being put, the learned counsel
for the petitioner-appellant is not disputing the fact that
fresh selection process was initiated in the year 2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant states that the
petitioner-appellant never challenged the instructions,
annexure-4, dated 22nd December, 2017. In this backdrop,
the entire selection process as per his instructions was
completed in 2018 and as per the instructions, Clause-10,
the petitioner-appellant was to apply afresh and to
participate in the selection process on merit. Since these
instructions had been issued and are being followed till
date, no cause is made out to interfere in the judgment of
the learned Single Judge.
8. Hence, the Special Appeals are dismissed.
________________
RITU BAHRI, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dated: 21.03.2024
Shiv/
