Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/335/2019 on 20 February, 2025
2025:UHC:1217-DB
Office Not es, report s,
orders or pr oceedings or
SL.
Dat e direct ions and COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
Regist rar 's or der w it h
Signat ures
U W PSB/ 3 3 5 / 2 0 1 9
U Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
U Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Hemant Pant, Advocate.
Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Addl. CSC for the
State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned counsel for the
State of Uttar Pradesh/respondent No. 3.
Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for
respondent No. 18.
2. Petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste
category. They were appointed as Group-3
employee in Horticulture and Food Processing
Department, between year 1983 to 1985. They
were promoted as Group-2 employee in the year
1996. Subsequently, in 1997, pursuant to a
decision taken by State Government, petitioners
were notionally promoted to Group-2 posts w.e.f.
1989 and 1990 respectively. In the year 1998,
seniority of petitioners was fixed based on the
order of notional promotion, passed in 1997, and
they were treated as senior to many of the
respondents.
3. According to petitioners, their inter-se
seniority qua the respondents, as fixed in 1998
was maintained upto 2014 when State of
Uttarakhand prepared seniority list of Group-2
employees afresh. However, in subsequent
seniority list of Group-2 employees, prepared in
2025:UHC:1217-DB
1997, their inter-se seniority, with private
respondents, was disturbed. Feeling aggrieved,
petitioners approached Uttarakhand Public
Services Tribunal by filing a Claim Petition.
4. Learned Public Service Tribunal dismissed
the claim petition, by holding that petitioners
could not have been given seniority on Group-2
post before the date when they were borne in the
cadre. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioners have
approached this Court.
5. A coordinate Bench of this Court passed an
interim order dated 29.07.2019, providing that
petitioners shall not be reverted consequent to the
judgment rendered by learned Public Service
Tribunal.
6. Today, when the matter was taken up,
learned counsel for respondents pointed out that
all the petitioners have retired from Group-2 post,
upto the year 2024. This statement is not disputed
by Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing for the petitioners. He further submitted
that promotion to different category of posts are
held up due to interim order passed in this writ
petition.
7. Since all the petitioners have retired from
service Class-II posts, and their pension and other
dues have been released by treating them to be
Class-II officers, therefore this Court finds force
in the submission made by learned counsel for the
2025:UHC:1217-DB
respondents that writ petition has become
infructuous, as after retirement of the petitioners,
their position in the seniority list will not have any
effect on their career or monetary dues payable to
them.
8. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed, as
infructuous.
9. However, petitioners shall be at liberty to
seek recall of this order, in case any adverse
consequences befall upon them because of
dismissal of the writ petition.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
20.02.2025
Mahinder/
