Nathu Lal Koli vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 2316 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Nathu Lal Koli vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 24 March, 2026

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
                                  AND
   THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
                   Special Appeal No.329 of 2022
                             24 March, 2026

  Nathu Lal Koli                                           -----Appellant

                                  Versus

  State of Uttarakhand and Others                       ----Respondents
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Presence:-
  Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.
  Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, learned C.S.C. along with Ms. Mamta Bisht,
  learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand/
  respondent nos.1 to 3.
  Mr. Saurabh Budhori, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Yogesh
  Kumar Pacholia, learned counsel for respondent no.4
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  JUDGMENT :

(per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J.)

Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2022)

1. Appeal is reported to be beyond time by 82

days. The explanation given for the delay is found to be

satisfactory. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the

respondents do not oppose the delay condonation

application. Accordingly, delay condonation application is

allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. By the present intra-court appeal, the appellant

has assailed the judgment and order dated 06.06.2022

passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No.2608 of 2019

whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ

petitioner was dismissed.

4. The appellant had filed the writ petition for the

following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 21-09-2019 (Annexure-2) & 4-11-

2019 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent no.2 i.e. the Director Urban Development Department Dehradun.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing and commanding the respondents that they shall absorb to the petitioner on the post of executive office in the respondent municipality and thereafter, re-fix his pensionary benefits treating him as an retired employee from the post of executive officer i.e. centralized post from the date of his retirement and grant all the consequential benefits to him accordingly."

5. By the orders impugned in the writ petition, the

claim of the appellant for absorption of his services in the

Palika Centralized Cadre as Executive Officer and for the

grant of retiral benefits admissible to members of Palika

Centralized Cadre was rejected.

6. The appellant was appointed as Work Agent

(class-iv post) in Nagar Palika Parisad, Rudrapur, District

Udham Singh Nagar on 03.01.1974 and his services were

later regularized on the said post.

7. Vide order dated 16.09.1997, appellant was

sent on deputation on the post of Executive Officer at

Nagar Palika Didihat, District Pithoragarh. The appellant

submitted an application on 12.03.2012 for absorption of

his services on the post of Executive Officer (a post under

the Palika Centralized Services Rules) and the said

representation was rejected on 24.07.2012 by the

Director, Urban Development, Dehradun. By the same

order, the appellant was also repatriated to his original

post of Work Agent and posted at Nagar Palika Parisad,

Rudrapur.

8. The said order dated 24.07.2012 was put to

challenge in WPSS No.1104 of 2012 in which an interim

order was passed on 14.08.2012, however, the aforesaid

writ petition was decided on 20.11.2015 and the order

dated 24.07.2012 by which claim of the appellant for

absorption on the post of Executive Officer was rejected

was not interfered and the Court further recorded a

finding that the case of the absorption of the petitioner

was rightly rejected and the petitioner /appellant cannot

be regularized on the post of Executive Officer. Paragraph

no.5 and 6 of the said order reads as under:

"5. The centralized Rule applicable in Uttarakhand are known as "The Uttarakhand Urban Development Directorate (on the posts of Junior Engineer (Technical) Chief Assistant, Accounts Clerk, Junior Assistant Cashier and Peon) Absorption Rules, 2009" (hereinafter referred to as the "Absorption Rules, 2009). The petitioner relies upon the rule 4(1) of the Absorption Rules, 2009. The Rules does not specify that such posts of Executive Officer can be regularized or absorption. Moreover, this Court has already held that the very sending of the petitioner on deputation in the year 1997 was in the violation of law for the reason that the petitioner was neither working on the pay scale of Executive Officer nor he was graduate at the relevant time. Therefore, as far as the case of absorption of the petitioner is concerned, it has rightly been rejected and this Court is also of the view that the petitioner

cannot be regularized on the post of Executive Officer/

6. The matter relates to the reversion of the petitioner. This matter was stayed by this Court.

During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner already reached the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.10.2012. Nothing further needs to be said on this aspect. It is further made clear that the pension, as applicable to the petitioner shall be determined and the same be calculated by respondent No. 2 within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. No further relief is granted to the petitioner."

9. The appellant during the pendency of the WPSS

No.1104 of 2012 had retired on 31.10.2012 and he

preferred another writ petition i.e. WPSS No.1586 of 2013

for grant of pensionary benefit on the post of Executive

Officer.

10. The said writ petition was disposed of on

08.05.2018 by which directions were issued to the

Director, Urban Development to decide the representation

of the appellant.

11. In pursuance to the said direction, the

representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order

dated 21.09.2019 and 04.11.2019 and the said orders

were impugned in the WPSS No.2608 of 2019 which was

dismissed on 06.06.2022 against which the present

special appeal has been preferred.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

in case of similarly situated employee, namely, Prakash

Chandra Harbola, his services were regularized as

Executive Officer after his retirement whereas the

appellant who is similarly situated has been discriminated.

He further refers to the case of other employees whose

name has been referred in paragraph no.22 of the writ

petition to contend that their services were also

regularized in the Palika Centralized Cadre after their

retirement, as such, the rejection of the claim of the

appellant for absorption was unjustified.

13. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the

judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and submits

that the case of the appellant for absorption on the post of

Executive Officer was rejected vide order dated

24.07.2012 and the said decision was not interfered by

the Court in WPSS No.1104 of 2012 and in absence of any

challenge to the said order the same has attained finality.

14. Learned State Counsel further submits that in

pursuance to the order passed in the present special

appeal on 04.09.2024, the services of the appellant for

the period while he was working on deputation has been

considered for the calculation of pension to be paid under

the non-centralized cadre. He refers to paragraph no.5 of

the supplementary affidavit which reads as under:

"5. That in reference to point number 2 of interim order dated 04.09.2024 of the Hon'ble High Court, it is requested that in compliance with the earlier order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, as per the provision of government orders, the calculation chart of pay fixation of the petitioner from 01.07.1986 to 01.07.2012 is given to the petitioner Shri Nathu

Lal Koli, which also includes the period of deputation from the year 1997 to 2012. On this basis, after retirement on 31.10.2012, the petitioner is being paid pension every month by the Municipal Corporation Rudrapur."

15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the records, we find that the learned

Single Judge has held that the orders passed by the

Director, Urban Development rejecting the claim of the

appellant, records valid reasons for denying petitioner's

claim for grant of benefit as admissible to members of

Palika Centralized Services.

16. The learned Single Judge also took note of the

orders passed in the earlier writ petitions filed by the

appellant and held that as the services of the appellant

were never absorbed in the Palika Centralized Services,

therefore, his claim for retiral benefits admissible to the

members of the Palika Centralized Services is untenable.

Moreover, facts narrated in the preceding paragraphs of

this judgment reveals that the case of the appellant for

absorption on the post of Executive Officer was rejected

by the Director, Urban Development vide order dated

24.07.2012 and the said decision was not interfered by

the writ court in WPSS No.1104 of 2012 and the finding

recorded by the Court that the appellant cannot be

regularized on the post of Executive Officer has become

final in absence of any challenge to the order dated

20.11.2015 passed in the said writ petition.

17. As the services of the appellant were not

absorbed on the post of Executive Officer, as such, the

appellant's claim was rightly rejected by the Director

Urban Development holding that the appellant was not

entitled for the benefit of retiral benefit as admissible to

the members of Centralized Cadre.

18. The reliance placed by the appellant on the case

of other employees is also bereft of any merit as in their

case there was no order of rejection of their claim for

absorption in the Palika Centralized Services whereas in

the case of appellant his case was rejected vide order

dated 24.07.2012 which was upheld by the writ court.

19. Thus, viewed from any angle, we do not find

any good ground to interfere in the order passed by the

learned Single Judge. The appeal fails and is hereby

dismissed.

20. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed

of.

(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)

(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 24.03.2026 SS

SUKHBANT Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8a6

SINGH 380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D7 2C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH Date: 2026.03.27 14:03:44 +05'30'