IN THE COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 665 of 2010 (S/S) Udai Veer Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents Present: Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. Dated: 2nd April, 2018 JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. The petitioners after selection as Collection Amins by the Selection Committee on 7th October, 1989, joined the services and they have been regularly working in the Department on the post of Collection Amins, but, they were given artificial breaks despite the fact that the services rendered by them were continuous in nature. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioners submits that when the petitioners claim for the inclusion of their names in the list of members for pensionary benefits for the payment of GPF and gratuity, the claim was not considered for the purposes of grant of benefit after taking into consideration the period of services rendered by them on a regular service since 1989, they filed the writ petition for the following reliefs :- “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding / directing the respondents to make the petitioners the member of pensionary benefit and they may also be directed to pay the G.P.F. and gratuity to the petitioners, counting their services as regular services from the date of their initial appointment of 1989. 2 ii) Issue as writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the Sub Rule (2) & (3) of Rule 5 of Uttarakhand Subordinate Revenue Employees (Naib Tehsildar) Services Rules, 2009 ultra virus. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding / directing the respondents to prepare the seniority list of Collection Amins and suitable persons / Collection Amins, including the petitioners be promoted on the post of Naib Tehsildar as per Rules. iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding / directing the respondents not to make any promotion on the post of Naib Tehsildar in pursuance of Rule Sub Rule (2) & (3) of Rule 5 of Uttarakhand Subordinate Revenue Employees (Naib Tehsildar) Service Rules, 2009, during the pendency of the writ petition. v) Issue any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioners. vi) Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioners.” The learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, submits that in the light of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Nos. 417 of 2013 and 581 of 2015, the prayer Nos. 2 and 4 have become redundant and he is not pressing for the same. As far as relief Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, he submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court while considering the issue has passed the judgment in WPSS Nos. 1628 of 2015 and 1637 of 2015, whereby, the writ petitions have been allowed by the judgment dated 22.03.2017 and a direction has been issued to the respondents to pay promotional pay scale of the Naib Tehsildar to the petitioners equivalent to that of his counter parts getting in other districts and are working as Collection Amin. He submits that in compliance of the said judgment as rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court 3 on 22nd March, 2017, the payments have been made by the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal on 1st January, 2018. During the course of proceedings, he has also produced before this Court the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Nos. 417 of 2013 and 581 of 2015. The Division Bench of this Court while considering the identical controversy for inclusion of the service period for the determination of the pensionary benefits and gratuity and other allied benefits emanating from the service condition, the Division Bench of this Court although has declined to consider the relief No. 2 as prayed for by the writ petitioners, which is not being pressed by him but simultaneously, the Division Bench while concluding the Special Appeals has passed the following judgment:- “27. There is a contention that there is discrimination practiced. The contention runs that there is only one single cadre of Collection Amins throughout the State and the Collection Amins in the Garhwal Region would get promotion. Under the 2009 Rules, there is no right given to any Collection Amin within the State of Uttarakhand to claim promotion as Naib Tehsildar. It may be true that after the notification issued in the year 1968, a new Division was created, and Kumaon was confined to Nainital, Almora and Pithoragarh and, therefore, the rest of the State, thereafter, came within the Division of Garhwal and, therefore, the 1944 Rules would apply to the Garhwal region and, therefore, Collection Amins in that area may claim a right under the 1944 Rules to be promoted as Naib Tehsildar, in the light of the provision of Section 74 of the State Reorganisation Act, 2000. We do not think that it is necessary for us to go into the said aspect. Under the 2009 Rules, there is no right given to any Collection Amin within the State of Uttarakhand to claim promotion as Naib Tehsildar. We do not think that we should probe this matter further and we leave this question open. There is a further complaint for the appellants that they are even being denied the promotional scale of Naib Tehsildar. If that is so, we leave 4 it open to the appellants to represent their grievance before the competent authority and it is for the competent authority to consider the matter and take a decision in accordance with law in the matter.” In that view of the matter, subject to the directions which have been issued by the Division Bench in its judgment on 27th July, 2017, this Writ Petition is too disposed of in terms of para 27 of the said judgment. But, the District Magistrate, Uttarkashi, while considering the representation submitted by the petitioners in compliance of today’s judgment, he will also take into consideration the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 27th July, 2017 and decide the claim within a period of six weeks from today in accordance with law. (Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 02.04.2018 Shiv