Uttarakhand High Court
August vs Sunil Thakur & Others on 11 August, 2025
2025:UHC:7053-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Service Bench No. 258 of 2021
11 August, 2025
UJVN Limited & another --Petitioners
Versus
Sunil Thakur & others --Respondents
With
Writ Petition Service Bench No. 54 of 2021
11 August, 2025
Girish Kumar --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners in WPSB No. 258 of 2021
and Mr. Yashpal Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Garg,
Advocate for petitioner in WPSB No. 54 of 2021
Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Sushil Vashistha,
Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Petitioners have challenged judgment dated
24.12.2020 rendered by Uttarakhand Public Services
Tribunal, Dehradun in Claim Petition No. 33/DB/2019.
Since the same judgment is under challenge in both the
writ petitions and grounds are also the same, therefore
both the petitions are being heard and decided together
2025:UHC:7053-DB
by this common judgment. However, for the sake of
brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/B) No. 258 of 2021
alone are being considered and discussed here.
2. Mr. Sunil Thakur (respondent no. 1 herein)
was appointed as Labourer, Category P-I in
Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited w.e.f.
15.07.2008; while Mr. Girish Kumar (respondent no. 2)
was appointed as such w.e.f. 06.10.2006. The next
promotional post available to both was Oiler/skilled
labourer in Category P-2, and Mr. Sunil Thakur
(respondent no. 1) was promoted to the said post vide
order dated 05.07.2014 by giving benefit of relaxation
in qualifying service; while, Mr. Girish Kumar
(respondent no. 2), who was not given benefit of such
relaxation, was so promoted w.e.f. 30.06.2015.
3. Thereafter, promotion exercise was again
initiated pursuant to office communication dated
06.08.2018 for supplying vacancies in TG-II category
during selection year 2018-19. Mr. Girish Kumar
(respondent no. 2) was promoted as P-4 on
08.03.2019. In that promotion exercise, Mr. Sunil
Thakur (respondent no. 1) was removed from the
eligibility list vide order dated 10.10.2018, passed by
Executive Engineer, on the ground that since he was
given benefit of relaxation in qualifying service earlier,
therefore, he cannot be given that benefit again. The
said order was communicated to Mr. Sunil Thakur
(respondent no. 1) on 01.12.2018.
4. Mr. Sunil Thakur approached Uttarakhand
Public Services Tribunal, seeking a direction to promote
2025:UHC:7053-DB
him to the post of P-4 from the date when Mr. Girish
Kumar (respondent no. 5 in claim petition) was
promoted. Learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition.
5. Thus, feeling aggrieved, Mr. Girish Kumar as
well as the employer (Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam
Limited) has approached this Court.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that
Mr. Sunil Thakur did not challenge the order dated
10.10.2018, passed by Executive Engineer, whereby his
name was removed from the eligibility list on the
ground that he cannot be given benefit of relaxation in
qualifying service, twice. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that Mr. Girish Kumar (respondent
no. 2) is senior as he was appointed earlier in point of
time as Labourer. He points out that Mr. Girish Kumar
was appointed as Labourer on 06.10.2006; while Mr.
Sunil Thakur (respondent no. 1) was appointed as
Labourer on 15.07.2008. He further submits that Mr.
Sunil Thakur was given benefit of relaxation in
qualifying service for promotion to the post of Oiler,
Category-P3, therefore, he could not be given
relaxation again for promotion to next higher post. He
submits that since Mr. Girish Kumar was not given
benefit of relaxation in qualifying service earlier,
therefore, he was given relaxation in the exercise held
for promotion to the post of P-4.
7. He submits that since an express order was
passed against Mr. Sunil Thakur (respondent no. 1) for
removing him from the field of eligibility, which was
also communicated to him on 01.12.2018, therefore,
2025:UHC:7053-DB
without setting aside the said order, no relief could
have been granted to Mr. Sunil Thakur. He submits that
the order dated 10.10.2018 passed by Executive
Engineer was brought to the notice of learned Tribunal
and it was taken note of in paragraph no. 5 of the
impugned judgment. Thus, he submits that learned
Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the
promotion given to Mr. Girish Kumar.
8. We find substance in the submission made by
learned counsel for the petitioners.
9. Since the name of Mr. Sunil Thakur was
removed for the eligibility list by passing an express
order by the Competent Authority, and that order was
also communicated to Mr. Sunil Thakur, therefore,
without setting aside the said order, whereby, he was
declared to be ineligible, no relief could have been
granted to Mr. Sunil Thakur nor he could have any
grievance against promotion given to Mr. Girish Kumar.
Learned Tribunal, however, overlooked this vital aspect
of the matter. Thus, the judgment rendered by learned
Tribunal is unsustainable.
10. The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed
and the impugned judgment dated 24.12.2020 is
hereby set aside.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
11.08.2025
Navin
NAVEEN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006
da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001,
CHANDRA
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA87564
3AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN
CHANDRA
Date: 2025.08.12 10:27:51 +05'30'
