Uttarakhand High Court
Sunita vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 30 April, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 702 of 2025 (S/S)
Sunita ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Pankaj Miglani and Mr. Aakib Ahmed, Advocates for the
petitioner.
Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State/respondents.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
It is the case of the petitioner that she ought to
have been given appointment by the respondent
department w.e.f. 12.04.2017, which they differed by
filing a delayed special appeal and thereby denied the
benefits of service, etc. to the petitioner for a quite long
period. The petitioner seeks salary and other benefits for
that period.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The facts necessary to appreciate the
controversy briefly stated are as follows. The petitioner's
husband was working with the respondent no.2
department on Daily Wagers since 1982. His services
were discontinued; on which, he took legal recourse and
by the order of this Court, he was reinstated. But, before
he could join, he died on 24.10.2011. Thereafter,
petitioner moved an application for appointment on
compassionate ground. She was denied. The petitioner
did file a writ petition bearing WPSS No.1972 of 2013,
Sunita vs. State of Uttarakhand and another ("first
petition"), which was allowed on 12.04.2017. But, the
petitioner was still not given the appointment by the
respondent no.2. They preferred a delayed Special Appeal
No.1086 of 2017, which was decided on 14.03.2022 and,
thereafter, the petitioner was given appointment on
07.04.2022. Now the petitioner claims that she should be
given service benefit w.e.f. 12.04.2017 when the first
petition was allowed by this Court till she joined on
07.04.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that due to inaction on part of the respondent
no.2, the petitioner was not given appointment pursuant
to the order dated 12.04.2017, passed in the first petition
thereafter, the respondent no.2 filed a delayed special
appeal, which was also dismissed. Therefore, it is argued
that the petitioner is entitled to get salary and other
service benefits from 12.04.2017 till she joined the
service.
5. This argument has no merit for acceptance.
The judgment of SPA No.1086 of 2017, State of
Uttarakhand and another Vs. Sunita ("special appeal")
dated 14.03.2022 is on record. The delay condonation
application filed in the special appeal was dismissed and
consequently, the special appeal was also dismissed. The
judgment and order dated 14.03.2022, passed in the
special appeal, the Court has not passed any such
directions that the petitioner is entitled to service
benefits, etc. with effect from the date when the first
petition was allowed. Therefore, in a separate proceeding
such matter cannot be even considered. Accordingly, the
petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of
admission itself.
6. The petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
30.04.2025
Sanjay
