IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO. 1772 OF 2005 Chandan Singh …….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. …Respondents. With WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO. 44 OF 2006 Chandan Singh ………….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. ……….Respondents. Present: Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The two writ petitions are by the same petitioner and have common facts and the fate of one will depend upon the other, both the writ petitions are heard together. 3. By means of Writ Petition No. 1772 of 2005 (S/S), the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing 2 the impugned order dated 23-11-2005 (Annexure 12) passed by the respondent no. 2. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in peaceful functioning of the petitioner till the matter of absorption of the petitioner in secretariat services is finalized by the Government. 4. By means of Writ Petition No. 44 of 2006 (S/S), the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26/28.12.2006 (Annexure No. 37 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 4. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the services on the post of clerk with all consequential service benefits and pay the full and regular salary with entire arrears and admissible interest. 5. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Class IV employee on daily rate basis in the office of District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. Subsequently, according to the petitioner, since there was scarcity of employees in the Secretariat, vide order dated 22.6.2001 passed by the Cane Commissioner, Dehradun, the petitioner was relieved and attached to the Camp Office of Cane Commissioner, Dehradun. The attachment of the petitioner in Secretariat was subject to the condition that the salary of the petitioner will be disbursed by the office of respondent no. 4 i.e. The General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill Ltd., Rajpur, Puranpur, Nadehi, District Udham Singh Nagar. On 3.9.2003, the petitioner was attached in the office of Principle Secretary/Commissioner, Forest and Village Development, Dehradun. The Secretary (Administration) 3 passed an order on 7.10.2005 attaching the petitioner to the office of Under Secretary, Cane and Sugar Department, Uttaranchal. 6. The State of Uttarakhand has failed to reply as to under which provisions of law, such orders could have been passed. Be that as it may, by subsequent order dated 23.11.2005 passed by the Addl. Secretary, Cane and Sugar Department, Uttaranchal, the petitioner was sent to Cooperative Sugar Mill, Nadehi, Udham Singh Nagar. All the same, the petitioner was not given joining at Co-operative Sugar Factory at Nadehi. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1772 of 2005 (S/S), wherein the following interim order was passed:- “Heard Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State who accepts notices for the respondents. Submission of the petitioner is that the Secretary (Administration) has passed order dated 7th October 2005 attaching the petitioner to the office of Under Secretary, Cane and Sugar Department, Uttaranchal. By the impugned order dated 23.11.2005, the Addl. Secretary, Cane and Sugar Department, Uttarancal has passed an order of repatriation of the petition. The impugned order has been passed by the subordinate authority. The petitioner has further submitted that no reason has been recorded as to why the petitioner is being sent back to the Nadehi Sugar Mill when there is scarcity of employees with the Secretariat. 4 Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. List thereafter. Till the next date of listing, the petitioner shall not be relieved, in case he has already not been relieved.” 7. Consequently, when the order was communicated to the Nadehi Sugar Mill, it was stated by the General Manager that the services of the petitioner are not required in the Sugar Factory. All the same, the petitioner was not given any joining in the Sugar Factory. The petitioner is not being allowed to work either in the Secretariat, Dehradun or in the Cane Development Department. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 44 of 2006 (S/S) with the following prayer: “(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order no. 463/2005-06 dated 26/28.12.06 (2005) (Annexure No. 37) passed by the respondent no. 4 to the writ petition. (II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the services on the post of clerk with all consequential service benefits and pay the full and regular salary with entire arrear and admissible interest. (III) Issue any other writ, order or direction which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5 (IV) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.” 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, all the claims raised by the petitioner have been denied. 9. The reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be granted by this court inasmuch as the petitioner was never appointed in accordance with law in the Cane Development Department or in any other Department of the Government, including the Collectorate. All the same, the petitioner also states that the Government has a scheme, whereby daily rated employees are being considered for absorption as Class IV employees in Government Services. Reference has been made to Government Order dated 22.6.2002 (Annexure No. 25 to Writ Petition No. 44 of 2006(S/S). 10. No such relief as is being prayed can be granted by this Court. Both the above writ petitions are, therefore, liable to be dismissed and are being dismissed with the direction that in case, the State Government has any scheme by which such persons as the petitioner can be considered for appointment, the claim of the petitioner shall also be considered, in accordance with law. 11. No order as to costs. 12. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 19.2.2011 Rathour