HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1939 of 2003 (S/S) Gopal Ram and another. ………..Petitioners Versus The State of Uttarakhand and others. …….Respondents Mr. G.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.C. Arya, Brief Holder for the State/ respondent no.1. Mr. Deepak Rawat, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3. Dated: June 18, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the orders dated 4.12.2003 (contained in annexure nos. 8&9) passed by the respondent no.2 by which services of the petitioners were terminated and also for a direction to respondents to provide the benefit of Govt. Order dated 23.04.2003 to the petitioners. 2. Briefly stated that in the year 1989 an interview was conducted by the Headquarter of U.P. Anushuchit Jati, Vitt Evam Vikas Nigam Limited, Lucknow and on the basis of that interview, the petitioners were selected. Accordingly, the petitioner no.1 was appointed on 29.08.1989 as Instructor (Carpenter) and the petitioner no.2 was appointed on 14.06.1989 on the post of Chaukidar in the fixed pay and both were posted at Badhaigiri Prashikshan Kendra (Carpentry Training Center), Nainital. Since the date of initial appointment, the petitioners are continuously working in the Department. It is stated that the petitioners are class IV employees, but they were assigned additional work from time to time. After creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the Uttarakhand Bahuddhesiya Vitt Evam Vikas Nigam 2 was established in the State and on the basis of their option, vide order dated 21.05.2002, the Managing Director of U.P. Anusuchit Jati, Vitt Evam Vikas Nigam relieved the petitioners for the Uttaranchal Bahuddhesiya Vitt Evam Vikas Nigam. It is asserted in the petition that vide order dated 16.08.2002, the respondent no.2 directed the respondent no.3 to assign work to the petitioners however, the petitioners were already working continuously in the office of the respondent no.3 on the post of Recovery Assistant and Chaukidar respectively. In the year 1996, the Carpentry Training Centres in the State of U.P. were closed and thereafter, the Managing Director, U.P. Anusuchit Jati, Vitt Evam Vikas Nigam passed order on 31.07.1996 for the adjustment of the employees of those training centres, which were closed, to the District Office of the U.P. Anusuchit Jati, Vitt Evam Vikas Nigam against the vacant posts. In pursuance of this Govt. Order, the petitioner no.1 was posted on the post of Incharge Recovery Assistant and the petitioner no.2 was posted on the post of Chaukidar at the District Office, Nainital. It is further stated in the petition that on 23.04.2003, the Secretary, Uttarakhand Govt. issued a G.O. for establishment of the District Offices of Uttarakhand Bahuddhesiya Vitt Evam Vikas Nigam whereby in addition to other posts, 13 posts of Recovery Assistant, 13 posts of Peon/Messenger and 13 posts of Chaukidar-cum- Sweeper were created. The petitioners are working under the establishment on the post of Recovery Assistant and Chaukidar respectively, which have been created vide Govt. Order dated 23.04.2003. Thereafter, all of a sudden the respondent no. 2 issued orders on 04.12.2003 by which services of the petitioners have been terminated. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred the paragraph-3 of the Govt. Order dated 23.04.2003, which provides that after abolition of Carpentry and Shorthand Training Centres in Dehradun, Pauri and Nainital the working staff of these centres be adjusted against the sanctioned posts. He also referred paragraph-7 of the said Govt. Order in which it is mentioned that the G.O. is being issued after due approval of the Finance Department. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were duly appointed in the year 1989 through proper selection process and they continued to work on fixed salary, but due to closure of Carpentry Training Centres, they were shifted to the Uttarakhand Bahuddhesiya Vitt Evam Vikas Nigam and were permitted to work against the duly sanctioned posts of Recovery Assistant and Chaukidar. He submitted that in view of the Govt. Order dated 23.04.2003, the petitioners are entitled for adjustment against the sanctioned posts. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that though the respondents have given the benefit of Govt. Order dated 23.04.2003 to the employees of Shorthand Training Centre, Nainital who were working on the post of Instructor/ Pravar Sahayak Prabandhak adjusting them against the post of Assistant Manager vide order dated 24.12.2005 (annexure no.1 to the rejoinder affidavit), while the petitioners are being deprived of the same benefit. He submitted that this action of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3, on the other hand, submitted that though as per the Govt. Order dated 23.04.2003 the staff of Carpentry Centre is to 4 be absorbed against the created post in the District Office according to their pay scale, but the State Govt. in the said G.O. has not made arrangements of finance and in view of this fact the petitioners cannot be granted benefit of the Govt. Order dated 23.04.2003, however, when the financial arrangement is made, the petitioners shall be absorbed. This contention of the learned counsel for the respondents also finds place in paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that after abolition of the Carpentry Centres, the working staff of those centres were transferred to the District Offices of the Uttarakhand Bahuddhesiya Vitt Evam Vikas Nigam. It is also clear from the Govt. Order dated 23.04.2003 that after abolition of Carpentry and Shorthand Training Centres, the working staff shall be adjusted against the sanctioned posts in the districts. The petitioners fulfill the required condition of the Govt. Order dated 23.04.2003. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that since no provision for financial arrangement was made in the Govt. order dated 23.04.2003, the petitioners cannot be absorbed, is totally incorrect, as in the said Govt. Order dated 23.04.2003 it is mentioned that the same was issued after due approval of the Finance Department. I do not find any ground on which basis the services of the petitioners could have been terminated by the respondents. The action of the respondents is discriminatory, as on one hand the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioners declining them the benefit of Govt. Order dated 23.04.2003 on the ground of financial hurdle, but at the same time they have 5 given benefit of the G.O. to the employees of Shorthand Training Centre. It is relevant to mention here that both the Centres i.e. Carpentry and Shorthand Training Centres were closed but the respondents granted benefit of G.O. dated 23.04.3002 to the employees of Shorthand Training Centre and declined the same benefit to the employees of Carpentry Training Centre. This action of the respondents is not only arbitrary but also discriminatory one. The impugned termination order dated 04.12.2003 deserves to be set-aside. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 04.12.2003 passed by respondent no.2 (contained as annexure no. 8&9) is hereby quashed. The respondent no. 2 is directed to pass appropriate order in the light of the Govt. Order dated 23.04.2003, for absorption of the petitioners in the District Office, Nainital, within a period of three months from today. 8. No order as to costs. (V.K. Bist, J.) 18.06.2010 NCM: