Uttarakhand High Court
June 24 vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors on 24 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:5331-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (S/B) No.201 of 2020
June 24, 2025
Shoorvir Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ... Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Sushil Vashishtha, Standing Counsel for the State/respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
1. Petitioner was appointed as Constable PAC in
erstwhile State of U.P. in the year 1987. His services were
terminated by invoking Uttar Pradesh Temporary
Government Servant (Termination of Service), Rules,
1975, vide order dated 09.07.1998. He challenged the
said termination order before U.P. Public Services Tribunal,
Lucknow by filing a claim petition, which upon State
reorganization, was transferred to Uttarakhand Public
Services Tribunal and was registered as Claim Petition
No.181/T/2002. The said claim petition was decided by
learned Tribunal, vide judgment dated 18.01.2008,
wherein the termination order dated 09.07.1998 was set
aside. The operative portion of the judgment rendered by
learned Tribunal is extracted below:-
2025:UHC:5331-DB
"In the light of discussion above, the impugned order
dated 19.07.1998 does not stand scrutiny of law and it is
hereby set aside. The petitioner is entitled for the
reinstatement from the date of his termination order and
he shall be deemed to be in regular service from the date
of termination order. There is no order to the salary on
the basis of no work no pay and also no order to the
cost."
2. The judgment rendered by learned Tribunal was
challenged by State of Uttarakhand in Writ Petition No.55
(S/B) of 2008, which was dismissed by Coordinate Bench,
vide judgment dated 17.10.2011.
3. Since the petitioner was not given consequential
service benefits, including A.C.P., for the period he
remained out of employment, therefore, he made a
representation seeking such benefits. His representation
was rejected by the Competent Authority, vide order dated
30.06.2018. Petitioner challenged the order dated
30.06.2018 by filing Claim Petition No.84/DB/2018, which
has been dismissed by learned Tribunal, vide judgment
dated 18.11.2019. Relevant paragraphs of the said
judgment are extracted below:-
"8. Hon'ble High Court, while affirming the order of the
Tribunal, did not grant any other relief to the petitioner.
It was open to the petitioner to have prayed for all these
reliefs which he has claimed here, before Hon'ble High
Court (even if he was respondent there). It is not open
for this Tribunal, now, to travel beyond what was
observed by the Hon'ble High Court. Tribunal's earlier
2025:UHC:5331-DB
order has to be kept in the backdrop, while deciding
present claim petition.
9. The import of Tribunal's earlier order, as we
understand, is that there will be no break in service of
the petitioner. He has been reinstated and shall be
deemed to be in regular service from the date of
termination order. Even if salary has not been ordered to
be paid to him on the principle of 'no work no pay', the
effect of Tribunal's earlier order would be that he will be
deemed to be in continuous service from the date on
which the order of termination of his services was issued.
10. In the circumstances, how can other benefits be
given to him? It is beyond one's comprehension to infer
that he would be entitled to annual increment, ACP,
Selection Grade, Leave, Pay Revision during the period
he did not work and the Tribunal did not order salary to
be paid to him during the period his services were
terminated.
11. It is not open for us to travel beyond what was held
by the Tribunal in its earlier order and what has been
directed by the Hon'ble High Court in writ petition.
12. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner placed decision
rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Shanti Niketan, Hindi
Primary School vs. Pal Hariram, 2010 SCLJ 762. Pal
Hariram's case is distinguishable from the facts of
present case, in the sense that the Tribunal, in that case
had quashed the impugned order passed by Shanti
Niketan School and directed reinstatement of Pal Hariram
with full salary and other benefits from the date of
termination till the date of the order. In the instant case,
the Tribunal had withheld salary of the petitioner. He was
simply reinstated and direction was given that he shall be
deemed in regular service from the date of termination
order. There was no direction for payment of salary in the
2025:UHC:5331-DB
instant case, whereas in Pal Hariram's case, full salary
and other benefits were directed to be granted.
13. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance
upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in
State of Uttaranchal vs. Khadag Singh, 2008 (5) SLR
586. Again, the facts of such decision are distinguishable
from the facts of present case. Hon'ble Supreme Court
did not interfere in the finding given by Hon'ble High
Court in Khadag Singh's decision, in which Hon'ble High
Court had directed the appellant to reinstate the
respondent in service with all consequential benefits,
which consequential benefits were conspicuous by their
absence in the instant case. The words used by this
Tribunal in its earlier order were - "there is no order to
the salary on the basis of no work no pay......"
14. The same is the situation in the decision of
State of U.P. and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, 2010
SCLJ 634, in which Hon'ble Apex Court did not interfere
with the judgment of Hon'ble High Court, who had
directed the employee to be reinstated in service with all
consequential benefits. Here the Tribunal, in the earlier
order, did not do so. Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand
did not add anything to the relief granted to present
petitioner by the Tribunal.
15. Reliance has also been placed upon a few
Government Order, relating to grant of Time Bound Pay
Scale and Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short,
ACP). These Government Orders would have been
relevant when this Tribunal heard the petition for the first
time and decided the matter. When the Tribunal had
passed the order and such order was affirmed by the
Hon'ble High Court, it is not open to us to reconsider
what was not granted to the petitioner by the Tribunal.
16. The claim petition is hereby dismissed. No order as
2025:UHC:5331-DB
to costs."
4. Petitioner has challenged the judgment dated
18.11.2019 passed by learned Tribunal, whereby his claim
petition was dismissed, in this writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
since in the earlier claim petition, wherein the petitioner
had challenged the termination order, learned Tribunal had
not only set aside the termination order but had also
directed that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in
regular service from the date of termination order,
therefore, petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with
continuity in service, therefore, there was no reason or
justification, whatsoever, for withholding the service
benefits, including the A.C.P. to him.
6. He further submits that the Competent Authority
rejected petitioner's claim for such benefits with total non
application of mind, vide order dated 30.06.2018, and the
learned Tribunal also went astray while dismissing the
claim petition on the ground that since petitioner did not
seek such benefits before the High Court, therefore, the
reliefs claimed by the petitioner in subsequent claim
petition cannot be granted. Petitioner submits that before
the High Court, State was the petitioner, which had
challenged the judgment rendered by the learned
Tribunal, therefore, petitioner had no occasion to seek any
new relief in a petition, in which he was added as a
respondent.
2025:UHC:5331-DB
7. He further submits that as a result of setting
aside the termination order by the learned Tribunal, it
shall be deemed, as if, petitioner was never terminated
from service and he remained in continuous service
throughout; although petitioner would not be entitled to
arrears of salary, in view of stipulation made by the
learned Tribunal in its earlier judgment, however, there is
no reason for denying him other benefits, which every
government servant is entitled to, based on his/her length
of service.
8. We find substance in the submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. Since the order of termination of service was set
aside by learned Tribunal on the ground that petitioner
cannot be treated as temporary government employee
after ten years of his appointment and without holding
disciplinary enquiry his services could not have been
terminated, therefore, as a natural corollary, petitioner will
be deemed to be in continuous service throughout. Thus,
petitioner became entitled to increments, though
notionally, for the period he remained out of employment
and the period during which he remained out of
employment, on account of termination of his service, has
to be taken into account for monetary benefits, including
A.C.P., which are available to similarly situate government
employees, as per Government Policy.
10. The reasoning given by learned Tribunal for
dismissing the claim petition, in our considered opinion,
2025:UHC:5331-DB
does not stand to reason. Thus, we allow the writ petition,
set aside the judgment in Claim Petition No.84/DB/2018
and direct the Competent Authority to consider the claim
of the petitioner for monetary benefits as per Government
Policy/Rules, within a period of six months from the date
of production of certified copy of this order.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
24.06.2025 24.06.2025
Rajni
RAJINI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48448ac3701
a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17d01342,
GUSAIN
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4DF4FC80
D4557562F95BEBA013F530616A158A0A878BD8,
cn=RAJINI GUSAIN
Date: 2025.06.25 23:08:08 -07'00'
