IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 539 of 2004 Smt. Vijaya Aswal …….Petitioner. Versus District Magistrate, Rudraprayage & others …..Respondents Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate for respondent no. 3. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Typist in Nagar Panchayat, Kedarnath, district Rudraprayag vide order dated 1.8.1997 by the Executive Officer, who was exercising the powers of the Chairman of the Nagar Palika. The period of appointment was only for 89 days. Consequently, vide order dated 28.7.1998 the petitioner was given an adhoc appointment as Clerk-cum-Typist and thereafter the petitioner continued to get the salary of the post on which she was working till April, 2002 along with other benefits of service such as the deduction of General Provident Fund, Group Insurance, etc. as well as maternity leave was also granted to the petitioner. Consequent to the direction issued by the District Magistrate, Rudraprayag on 26.6.2002 directing the Executive Officer not to disburse the salary of the petitioner, as the petitioner was not working on a sanctioned post. It is necessary to state at this juncture that it is an admitted fact that the post on which the petitioner was working all through was not a sanctioned post. Be that as it may, consequent to the letter of the District Magistrate, Rudraprayag, the salary of the petitioner was stopped. Aggrieved, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition before this Court. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. During the course of hearing, learned counsels for the parties made a statement that the Director, Local Bodies, Uttarakhand, Dehradun is a necessary party in the present Writ Petition. The Director, Local 2 Bodies, Uttarakhand is hereby ordered to be impleaded as respondent no. 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties at length. Vide an interim order dated 26.4.2004, the following order was passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court :- “Heard Mr. S.K. Posti, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent No. 1 & 2 and Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. Respondents No. 1 & 2 are directed to pay the salary to the petitioner every month if the services of the petitioner have not been terminated and the arrears of salary shall also be paid within a month to the petitioner. List after one month” It has been stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the Nagar Palika that since then the petitioner is regularly getting the salary. The question which remains to be decided by this Court is as to whether under the circumstances narrated above, the petitioner has any right to continue on the post which has not been sanctioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner on this question has drawn the attention of this Court to a letter dated 2.8.2002 which is addressed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika to the District Magistrat, Rudraprayag apprising him that on 4.5.1998 the District Magistrate has already made a requisition to the State Government i.e. to the Director, Local Bodies in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh requesting that the post of Clerk-cum-Typist be sanctioned for the Nagar Palika. The factum of this letter/requisition has not been denied. Although this Court does not find any good ground for interference in this writ petition, for regularising the services of the petitioner in view of the Full Bench Judgment of Apex Court in State of Karnataka & others V. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 as well as under the facts and circumstances of this Court, this much however is clear that in case the petitioner was working as a Clerk-cum-Typist then she was liable to get the salary for the period she has worked. The Director, Local Bodies, Uttarakhand shall consider the request of the District Magistrate way back in the year 1998. Learned counsel for 3 the Nagar Palika Sri Subhash Upadhyay undertakes that he shall furnish a copy of this requisition to the Director, Local Bodies, Government of Uttarakhand within a period of three weeks from today. Consequent to such requisition being placed before the Director, Local Bodies, Uttarakhand, he shall take a decision within a further period of three months. It is made clear that any observations made in this Court may not be treated as any observations on merits of the case. The Director, Local Bodies, Uttarakhand will take an independent decision on the matter regarding creation of the said posts. As and when the posts are created, the State Government as well as the Local Bodies are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law to fill the vacancy of Clerk-cum-Typist. As far as the payment of salary to the petitioner is concerned, there are no records available before this Court to verify as to whether the petitioner has actually worked on the post. Therefore, it is directed that the petitioner shall move a representation before the Director, Local Bodies, Uttarakhand, Dehradun / respondent no. 4, who after inquiring into the matter would decide the representation of the petitioner pertaining to the payment of salary to the petitioner. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 16.7.2010 Avneet