State Of Uttarakhand & Others ... vs Prem Singh Negi
2025 Latest Caselaw 142 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

State Of Uttarakhand & Others ... vs Prem Singh Negi on 6 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                 2025:UHC:3533-DB



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                AT NAINITAL
              HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
                HON'BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J

                 SPECIAL APPEAL No.495 of 2017

State of Uttarakhand & others                                          ...Appellants
                                    Versus
Prem Singh Negi                                                      ...Respondent


Counsel for the appellant/State      :        Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned DAG.


Counsel for respondent                        None present.




JUDGMENT :

(PER HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J) As per office report, there is a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons indicated in the delay condonation application (CLMA No.9369 of 2017), we condone the delay and allow the delay condonation application.

3. State has filed this intra court appeal challenging judgment dated 09.05.2017, rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1069 of 2016. Operative portion of the impugned judgment is reproduced below:-

"Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.04.2016 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within six weeks from today."

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was appointed on daily wages as Driver in a project, and since there was no fund available in the project for continuing the

2025:UHC:3533-DB

petitioner in service after 25.04.2016, therefore, his services were terminated.

5. When learned State Counsel was asked to show pleadings, if any, made in the counter affidavit regarding lack of funds, he could not show any such pleadings. He refers to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit, which was filed by Dr. Rajendra Singh, Principal, District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Almora. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit are extracted below:-

"8. That earlier to that the petitioner has been paid his remuneration from District Project Education Programme (D.P.E.P.)/Sarve Shiksha Abhiyan/Teachers Education Project that for that project no post of the drivers has been sanctioned and only from the budget available for the project the remuneration has been paid to the petitioner and if the budget is not available then the service of an employee is being terminated. That the petitioner has been engaged for that project run by District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Almora, District- Almora and has been paid his remuneration from the budget of Sarve Shiksha Abhiyan.

9. That it is also pertinent to mention here that the appointment of the petitioner was not against the vacant and sanctioned post neither the same was substantive appointment."

6. Pleadings made in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit are vague, and it nowhere states that the services of the writ petitioner were terminated on account of lack of funds.

7. Since the services of the writ petitioner were abruptly terminated without any valid reason and he was

2025:UHC:3533-DB

also not given any opportunity of hearing, therefore, learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition filed against the termination order.

8. In view of the above, special appeal is dismissed.

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J.

ASHISH NAITHANI, J.

Dt:06th May, 2025 NR/