w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



State of Uttarakhand & Others v/s Vikas Snehi & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- VIKAS R & D INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U73100DL2012PTC232875

Company & Directors' Information:- VIKAS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1949PTC007334

Company & Directors' Information:- THE VIKAS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24231UP1934PLC000592

    CLMA Delay Condonation Application No. 2547 of 2020 in Special Appeal No. 70 of 2020

    Decided On, 16 March 2020

    At, High Court of Uttarakhand

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. RAMESH RANGANATHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE

    For the Appellants: Anil Kumar Bisht, Learned Standing Counsel. For the Respondents: S.K. Posti, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ashutosh Posti, Learned Counsel.



Judgment Text

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ.Oral1. The application, seeking condonation of delay, is not opposed by Sri S.K. Posti, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, and is, therefore, ordered. The delay stands condoned.2. This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 62 of 2018 dated 22.07.2019.3. The respondents herein invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 29.08.2017; and for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 therein to regularize their service in the post of Caretaker in which they were working for more than 10 years, and which was a sanctioned and a vacant post.4. Facts, as noted in the order under appeal, are that the first petitioner was appointed as a Cook on 21.03.1996, and the second petitioner was appointed as a Kahar on 01.10.1998, in the Government Observation Home, Pauri district on temporary basis on fixed emoluments. Both of them rendered service against sanctioned posts of Caretakers since 2007-08. They filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1912 of 2011 which was disposed of on 22.12.2011 permitting them to make a representation; and directing the respondents to decide the representation in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi : (2006) 4 SCC 1 . On the writ petitioners making a representation, order dated 29.08.2017 was passed rejecting their claim for regularization holding that the posts of Cook and Kahar were not sanctioned posts.5. The order of the learned Single Judge records the submission of Sri C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State Government, that the writ petitioners were serving in the Department since 1996 and 1998, and were entitled to be regularized in service; and a similar controversy had been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the Forest matter. In the light of this submission, the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 29.08.2017, and issued a mandamus directing the third respondent to regularize the services of the writ petitioners in the post of Caretakers from the date their junior had been regularized; and they be paid salary and other service benefits accordingly.6. On the appellants herein seeking review of the said order, the learned Single Judge, in his order dated 08.01.2020, observed that nowhere, in the review application, was it stated that Mr. C.S. Rawat, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, had made such a statement under some misconception; and, on the basis of the said statement, the writ petition was allowed by the Court.7. With regards the contention that the 2013 Regularisation Rules had been stayed by the Division Bench, the learned Single Judge opined that the claim of the respondents was under the 2011 Rules, which were not under challenge. The Review Application was dismissed.8. It is not even contended before us by Sri Anil Kumar Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government, that the learned Single Judge had either wrongly recorded the submission made on behalf of the State Government by Sri C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, or that no such statement was made by him before the learned Single Judge.9. The order under appeal is a consent order. Having consented for such an order to be passed, it is not open to the State Government thereaft

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

er to prefer an appeal thereagainst.10. An intra-Court appeal would, ordinarily, not be entertained under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules , where the order under appeal is based on a consent given on behalf of the appellant. We see no reason, therefore, to entertain this intra-Court appeal. The Special Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
O R