Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 2437 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 27 March, 2026

                 Office
                 Notes,
                reports,
               orders or
             proceedings
SL.
      Date         or                        COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
              directions
                  and
              Registrar's
              order with
              Signatures
                            WPSB/170/2026
                            Ajay Kumar
                                                                                  --Petitioner
                                                Versus
                            State Of Uttarakhand and others
                                                                             --Respondents
                            Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, C. J.
                            Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

1. Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi and Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. B.P.S.Mer, learned Standing Counsel, assisted by Mr. S.M.S.Mehta, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1.

3. Mr. Shiv Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 & 3.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a deputationist in BRIDCUL and, therefore, his appointing authority continues to be the appointing authority of the lending department i.e. P.W.D. The suspension order has been passed under Rule 4 of the Uttarakhand Governed Servant (Discipline and Appeals) Rule, 2003, which only empowers the appointing authority or vide the second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Section 4, the Head of Department, where so empowered by the Governor, to place Group 'A' or 'B' employee under suspension. In the instant case the suspension order has been passed by Managing Director, BRIDCUL, who is neither the appointing authority nor there is any delegation of power of suspension in his favour. Consequently, the impugned suspension order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of BRIDCUL tried to justify the suspension order placing reliance on Uttarakhand Infrastructure Development Corporation Service Rules, 2008, particularly, Rule 13 (3) thereof which only confers powers of absorption in favour of the Corporation of any person working on deputation. In the instant case, concededly, the petitioner has not been absorbed in BRIDCUL so far and he continues to be an employee of PWD, and therefore also holds lien in the said department.

6. The matter requires consideration.

7. Let the counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within two weeks.

8. List after filing of counter affidavit.

9. Meanwhile, the effect and operation of the suspension order dated 16.03.2026 shall remain in abeyance.

(IA No. 1 of 2025, Stay Application stands disposed of.)

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) 27.03.2026 27.03.2026 Kaushal