Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/423/2013 of Lal Singh Negi Since Deceased AND OTHERS Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS on 28 December 2013
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 423 of 2013 Lal Singh Negi (since deceased) and others ……….. Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……….. Respondents Present: Mr. H.C. Bisht, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vinay Kumar,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 423 of 2013
Lal Singh Negi (since deceased)
and others
……….. Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others
……….. Respondents
Present: Mr. H.C. Bisht, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5.
Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral)
There is no dispute that on 30[th] June 1993, the Government issued an order and, thereby, standardized the practice of determining satisfactory service. In the order, it was provided that, if during the period under consideration, any adverse entry is in existence and subsequent to the date of incident in respect of said adverse entry, for the next five years, no adverse entry (like adverse entry, punishment etc.) is recorded, then the said adverse entry shall not be taken into consideration for evaluation of satisfactory service; meaning thereby, the same be ignored.
2. In the instant case, an adverse entry was recorded on 11[th] May, 1992 in relation to an incident of 28[th] May 1988, in the service records of the original appellant. Subsequent thereto, no such adverse entry was recorded in the service records of the original appellant and, at the same time, original appellant was not meted out any punishment. Original appellant was given Selection Grade on 10[th] June, 1995 with effect from 12[th] May, 1995. There appears to be no dispute that if the said adverse entry is ignored, original appellant would have been entitled to Selection Grade with effect from 12[th] May, 1992. He made a representation that in the matter of determining satisfactory service, the said entry could not be taken note of and, if the said entry is not taken note of, original appellant is entitled to Selection Grade with effect from 12[th] May, 1992. This was allowed. Subsequent thereto, an objection was raised by the Finance Controller. Finance Controller pointed out that in terms of the order dated 30[th] June 1993, a decision, already taken, cannot be reopened on the basis of the said order dated 30[th]June, 1993. Taking the said objection into account, the decision to grant Selection Grade to the original appellant with effect from 12[th]May, 1992 was recalled. This was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, which has been dismissed and hence the present appeal.
3. The fact remains that the Government Order dated 30[th]June, 1993 vested a legal right in favour of the original appellant not to consider the said adverse remark for determining satisfactory service record, inasmuch as, subsequent to the date of the incident pertaining to the said adverse remark, no adverse remark was recorded. The right so vested in the appellant, was totally ignored, when the original appellant was given the Selection Grade by an order dated 10[th] June, 1995 with effect from 12[th] May, 1995. Subsequently, this having been corrected, it was unjust and improper on the part of the Finance Controller to hold out that in terms of the order dated 30[th] June 1993, the order passed on 10[th]June 1995 cannot be altered. It is unfortunate that without even bothering to read the Government Order dated 30[th] June, 1993 and making no attempt to ascertain the true purport thereof, acting on the basis of the said wrong advice of the Finance Controller, the decision to accord Selection Grade to the original appellant with effect from 12[th] May, 1992 was recalled.
4. We, accordingly, interfere; allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order under appeal and, at the same time, set aside the orders of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively dated 22[nd]August, 2005 and 16[th] June, 2006. The order of S.S.P., Nainital dated 10[th] February, 2005 is restored. The benefit of this order be
made available to the present appellant as quickly as possible, but not later than three months from today after making appropriate calculation of the lawful dues of the original appellant.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.)
28.12.2013 28.12.2013
P. Singh