Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 24 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:5326-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (S/B) No.272 of 2019
24th June, 2025
Tula Ram and Another --Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Susheel
Vashishth, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT:
(per Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
By means of this writ petition, petitioners have
sought the following reliefs:-
"a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing the Service Rules, 2011 as being
in violation of Section 74 of the Uttar
Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000
(Contained as Annexure no.2 to this writ
petition);
b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the
respondents not to implement the Service
Rules, 2011 and till the pendency of the
writ petition the cadre structure of the
2025:UHC:5326-DB
petitioners of District Level shall not be
changed."
2. According to petitioners, they were appointed
against a post in District level Cadre before State
Reorganization, however, their cadre is made State level
by the Uttarakhand Accounts Cadre (Rural Development
Department) Services Rules 2011. This according to them
is in violation of proviso to Section 74(1) of Uttar Pradesh
Reorganization Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act")
3. It is not in dispute that petitioners were
appointed as Junior Clerk in ministerial cadre of Rural
Development Department in the year 1993 and their
services were governed by Uttar Pradesh Agricultural
Production and Rural Development Department
Ministerial Services Rules, 1980. The 1980 Rules
contemplated separate cadres for Headquarter, Zonal
Office and District Offices and petitioners were appointed
as Junior Clerk in District Office at Haridwar.
4. Learned State Counsel points out that after
Reorganization of State of U.P., petitioners were
redesignated as Assistant Accountant in terms of a policy
decision taken by Government in the year 2004 and
Commissioner, Rural Development, Uttarakhand became
their appointing authority.
5. Learned State Counsel further submits that
the highest promotional post available to the petitioners
was that of Accountant to which they were promoted
before enforcement of 2011 Rules. He submits that
proviso to Section 74(1) of the Act is not attracted as
petitioners willingly accepted their redesignation as
Assistant Accountant given by Uttarakhand State and
2025:UHC:5326-DB
due to redesignation of their post, their appointing
authority was also changed from District Development
Officer to Commissioner, Rural Development.
6. Learned State Counsel further submits that
promotional prospects of the petitioners are not going to
be affected as petitioners have already reached the
highest position before enforcement of 2011 Rules,
impugned in the writ petition. He also submits that their
seniority also is not going to be affected.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners per contra,
contends that Cadre of Accountant and Assistant
Account under the new Rules, namely, the Uttarakhand
Accounts Cadre (Rural Development Department)
Services Rules, 2011, is now State level and petitioners
will now be liable for transfer anywhere in the State
which amounts to change in conditions of service; thus
proviso to Section 74(1) of the Act would be attracted.
Section 74 of the Act is extracted below for ready
reference:-
"74. Other provisions relating to
services.--(1) Nothing in this section or in
section 73 shall be deemed to affect on or after
the appointed day, the operation of the
provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV of the
Constitution in relation to determination of the
conditions of service of persons serving in
connection with the affairs of the Union or any
State:
Provided that the conditions of service
applicable immediately before the appointed
day in the case of any person deemed to have
been allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh or to
the State of Uttaranchal under section 73 shall
not be varied to his disadvantage except with
2025:UHC:5326-DB
the previous approval of the Central
Government.
(2) All services prior to the appointed day
rendered by a person,--
(a) if he is deemed to have been allocated
to any State under section 73, shall be deemed
to have been rendered in connection with the
affairs of that State;
(b) if he is deemed to have been allocated
to the Union in connection with the
administration of the Uttaranchal, shall be
deemed to have been rendered in connection
with the affairs of the Union,
for the purposes of the rules regulating his
conditions of service.
(3) The provisions of section 73, shall not
apply in relation to members of any All-India
Service."
8. Admittedly, petitioners accepted their
redesignation as Assistant Accountant without demur
and upon redesigantion, Commissioner, Rural
Development Department became their appointing
authority. Commissioner, Rural Development is head of
Rural Development Department and a person appointed
by him is liable to be transferred anywhere in the State.
Before redesignation as Assistant Accountant, their
appointing authority was District Development Officer,
who is a District level authority.
9. As petitioners kept mum when Commissioner,
Rural Development Department became their appointing
authority in 2004, therefore, the challenge thrown by
them to the service rules notified in 2011 would be
barred by acquiescence. Moreover, earlier, petitioners
were serving in Ministerial Cadre and in 2004 they
became member of Accounts Cadre which is a different
2025:UHC:5326-DB
cadre altogether. Change of cadre from Ministerial to
Accounts was never questioned by them, which indicates
that it was done with their consent.
10. Appointments to superior post under the
Government is made by a State level authority and such
appointees are member of State cadre. District level
authority are competent to make appointment only
against subordinate posts which have District level cadre.
Thus, change of cadre from District level to State level
cannot be termed as disadvantageous to a member of
District cadre as it results in upgrading status of a
member of District cadre. Normally, such change is due
to promotion of District cadre employees.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that as member of State level cadre, petitioners would be
liable to be transferred anywhere within the State while
they were not so liable under the 1980 Rules.
12. The said contention is bereft of merit. The
status of the petitioners was altered in 2004 when they
were re-designated as Assistant Accountant and they
ceased to be governed by the Ministerial Rules of 1980
and Commissioner (Rural Development Department)
became their appointing authority.
13. A Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Triloki
Nath Khosa & Ors. 1974 (1) SCC 19 held that though
employment under the Government like that under any
other master may have a contractual origin, the
Government servant acquires a 'status' on appointment
to his office. As a result, his rights and obligations are
liable to be determined under statutory or constitutional
2025:UHC:5326-DB
authority which for, its exercise, requires no reciprocal
consent. The Government can alter the terms and
conditions of its employees unilaterally and though in
modern times consensus in matters relating to public
services is often attempted to be achieved, consent is not
a pre-condition of the validity of rules of service, the
contractual origin of the service notwithstanding.
14. Even otherwise also change of cadre from
District level to State level will not attract proviso to
Section 74(1) of the Act as it does not vary the conditions
of service of petitioners to their disadvantage. Neither
their promotional prospects nor their emoluments, age of
superannuation or retiral benefits are going to be altered
to their disadvantage because of such change of cadre.
15. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the
challenge to the Service Rules of 2011 thrown by
petitioners is without any substance. Thus, there is no
scope for interference in the matter.
16. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.)
Dated: 24.06.2025
SS
