IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No.350 of 2006 State of Uttaranchal and another ……….. Petitioners Versus The Public Services Tribunal, Uttaranchal and two others ....……… Respondents Coram:- Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, Chief Justice Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, Judge Present: Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for the petitioners. None for respondent Nos. 1 & 3. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Advocate for respondent No.2. Date of Decision: 22.04.2010 J.S. Khehar, C.J. (Oral) Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the decision rendered on 28.04.2006 in Claim Petition No. 144/T/2003 by the Public Services Tribunal Uttaranchal, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The aforesaid claim petition was filed by respondent No.2 claiming the benefit of Government Orders dated 02.03.1967 and 05.01.1972. Under the aforesaid Government Orders, a retrenched government employee on re-employment into government service is entitled to the protection of the conditions of his service prior to his retrenchment. The Tribunal having arrived at the conclusion, that the respondent No.2 had been retrenched and was thereafter re-employed in the District Planning Office, vide a letter dated 03.10.1973 was entitled to the benefits contained in the Government Orders dated 02.03.1967 and 05.01.1972. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no material on the record of this case, on the basis of which it can be demonstrated that respondent No.2 was a retrenched employee. Inspite of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we invited the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the factual position depicted in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the 2 impugned order dated 28.04.2006 rendered by the Tribunal. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the impugned order are being extracted hereunder:- “7. The only question involved in this case is whether the petitioner was employed by respondent in Soil Conservation Department as fresh employee after following proper procedure for recruitment or as retrenched employee? 8. The answer to this question is contained in the appointment letter dated 3.10.1973 filed as (Annexure-5). The opening sentence of the appointment letter, states that in continuation of District Planning Officer letter No.3094/Stha/73-74/(1-4)/dated 30.08.1973, Sri Balwant Singh being surplus Government Employee, is appointed as junior clerk. Therefore, from language of the appointment letter, it is very clear that the only consideration to issue appointment letter to the petitioner was that he was surplus employee. Further Senior Account Officer Agriculture Directorate recommended fixation of pay of the petitioner as retrenched employee, the copy of the recommendation has been filed as (Annexure-7). As regards claim of the petitioner based on parity with Leeladhar Kandpal, Krishna Mohan Papana, Bhagwant Singh Mehta, the respondents have stated that these employee after retrenchment were reemployed in the Soil Conservation Department and therefore, all the benefits of the Government Order were extended to them. However, the case of the petitioner cannot be compared with them as petitioner has already been allowed benefit of Government Order dated 20.08.1971, when he was re-employed as retrenched employee in the Family Planning Department. The contention of the petitioner is not sustainable for the simple reason that petitioner was treated as surplus employee by respondent and appointed as junior clerk. Therefore, the Government Order dated 5.1.1972 is applicable to the petitioner. Para two of the said government Order has been issued as clarification to the earlier Government Order dated 2.3.1967 on the subjects, wherein it is provided that retrenched employee shall get the benefit in all subsequent appointments, if Government employee is re-employed after he is rendered surplus.” 3. The factual position depicted in paragraphs 7 and 8, extracted hereinabove, has not been disputed either in the pleadings or by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of the hearing of the instant writ petition. We, therefore, have no other alternative but to accept the aforesaid facts as correct. Based on the appointment letter dated 03.10.1973, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that respondent No.3 was a surplus government employee 3 who had been retrenched, and thereafter, was re-employed in government service. We have no hesitation in accepting the aforesaid inference drawn by the Tribunal, especially when nothing to the contrary has been brought to our notice. 4. Having arrived at the conclusion that respondent No.2 was a retrenched government employee, and thereafter, was re-employed in government service, we are satisfied that respondent No.2 was entitled to the benefit of Government Orders dated 02.03.1967 and 05.01.1972. This is exactly what has been decided by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 28.04.2006. 5. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is, therefore, accordingly hereby dismissed. ( Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. ) ( J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 22.04.2010 P.Singh