Satyapal v. State of Uttarakhand

Sl. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar's order with Signatures COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS

WPSS No.1720 of 2023 Hon 'ble Sh ar ad Ku m ar Sh ar m a, J.

Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sachin Mohan Singh Mehta, Standing Counsel, for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner worked with the respondent as a muster role employee, and he worked in the said capacity till his services were dispensed on the ground that he was found to be engaged in commission of the criminal offence, for which he was placed behind the bars and later on was released on bail on 27.07.1998, and after being released on bail when he presented himself to be reappointed, his services were dispensed with.

The action of the respondent of dispensation of the services of the petitioner were put to challenge by the petitioner by seeking reference under section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, and ultimately the reference was made to be decided by the learned Labour Court, which stood adjudicated by an award rendered in Adjudication Case No.66 of 2015, "Sri Satyapal Vs. M/s Irrigation Research Institution, Roorkee". The learned Labour Court ultimately had passed an award on 15.09.2016, to the following effect:- "14. """ """"" """ """ """""् """""" "" " "" "" " "" """"" / "" """"" """" "ቦ """ "ቦ " """"" ""ቔ "ቦ " """" "" "" """ "" "" """ """""

05.01.1998 " " """" """" """" "" " """ """ """" """ "ቚ """ "" """ " " """"" " " """" "" """" "" """"" " """" / "ቦ """ "" "" " " "" " """"" / "" """"" " " """" "" """ " " """ """"" """" "" """"" / "" """"" "" """ "" """" """" " " "" """"" / "" """"" "ቚ "" """" " " " "ቚ """"" """" "" """" "" """ 60 """ " " """" / "ቦ """ "" "" " """"" / "" """ """" """"") "" "" """" "" " """" """" "ቦ """ """" "" "" """" """" " " """ """ "i"ቚ """ "e""ቔ e""e""""eeeeeneennne"e" """""e ""e ""e "" """ " "e ""e """"e "" "e """" "e""e""""ee""e""e"""e" ""ee""e"ቚ """""e ""e""e"e" """""eee"" """""e"e" ₹5,000.00e e""" ee""""e"""ቔ ee"""""""""" e""""""e"ቚ ""e """e" ""e """""""e """""e """" ""e """"e """""""e""e"e" """"eee"ቦ """e"ቦ "e"""""e ""ቔ e"ቦ "e"""" ""e"e" ""e"""""e""""e""""e"" e """"e" "ቦ "e """ ee """"""ee """"" e ""e "ቚ """"e "" e" """"""" ""e "ቚ " ""e """"e """"e """e "ቚ """"e ""ቔ """"e """"""" ""e """"" """"e"""""e""e""

The learned Labour Court has held that the dispensation of the services of the petitioner as Beldar on 05.01.1998, was found to be illegal and in violation of the principle of natural justice, and as such, the direction was issued that within 60 days from the date of the publication of the award, the petitioner was directed to be "reappointed as a muster role employee, on an equivalent post".

It is this clause, which has been interpreted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as if the direction issued to be reappointed within 60 days on an "equivalent post", would be read as to be a "reinstatement", and if that be the situation, he would revive back his position as it was persisting on the date of his removal i.e. on 05.01.1998.

The same has been answered to the contrary by the learned Standing Counsel, that the learned Labour Court award, which admittedly, was unchallenged by any of the parties to the writ petition. He submits that the direction given by the Labour Court was to "reappoint" him on an equivalent post. He submits that the two nomenclatures used in the award and the inference drawn by the award to reappoint as a muster role employee, on the same post would mean that it was a "fresh appointment", and since there was a break in the services from 05.01.1998 to 15.09.2016, the petitioner would not be falling to be considered for regularization as per the Rules of 2011.

This was the view taken in the impugned order, which is under challenge in the writ petition, that in the absence of there being a lack of the continuity being provided to the services of the petitioner in the impugned award, since it was directed to be a fresh appointment, he would be falling to be outside the ambit of the Rules of 2011, to be considered for regularization, and as such, the reason which has been assigned, if it is read in consonance with the award itself, the interpretation as given by the petitioner to the impugned award may not be sustainable, because once the Labour Court has used the word "Punha Muster Role/Savindha athva Samantar pad par niyukat karein". The two words Punha and the "appointment" used in the award means it was a reappointment and not a reinstatement as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since it being an appointment made in pursuance to the award dated

15.09.2016, the petitioner will not fall to be within the purview of the Regularization Rules of 2011, as there was no continuity in appointment.

Hence, the denial to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization was rightly denied by the Executive Engineer, which doesn't call for any interference by the Court in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the writ petition stand dismissed.

( Sh ar ad Ku m ar Sh ar m a, J.)

14.09.2023 NR