WRIT PETITION 1483 of 2015 on 19 February 1995

WPMS No. 1483 of 2015 Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.

Mr. T.C. Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Shashank Upadhyay, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3.

Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for the respondent no. 2.

The petitioner was born on 20.02.1997, as per the birth certificate issued by National Capital Territory of Delhi under Section 12/17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The petitioner sought admission in Will Field School affiliated to C.B.S.E. New Delhi. However, inadvertently, the date of birth of the petitioner in the admission and withdrawal register has been mentioned as 19.02.1995.

The Principal of the Will Field School sent a communication to the C.B.S.E. for correction of the date of birth from 19.02.1995 to 19.02.1997.

The case of the petitioner was rejected by the C.B.S.E. vide impugned annexure No.11 by making two observations on 08.01.2014 that the original admission and withdrawal register are seem to be tampered. In fact, the petitioner has also placed on record, the copy of the birth certificate issued by the Competent Authority under Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, whereby the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 19.02.1997, though, in the birth certificate issued by the National Capital Territory of Delhi is stated as 20.02.1997.

This kind of error generally happens, at the time, when the children are admitted in the School due to ignorance or oversight. On the basis of confusion over-sight by the guardian of the petitioner, initially, the date of birth of the petitioner, in the school records was entered as 19.02.1995, which led to the recording of the same in the S.S.E. examination records.

The permanent address attached to the birth certificate issued under Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 read with Rules framed thereunder, the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 19.02.1997. The petitioner is permanent resident of the State of Uttarakhand.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned Annexure No.11 dated 08.01.2014 is quashed and set aside. The C.B.S.E. is directed to enter the date of birth of the petitioner in the S.S.E. certificate as 19.02.1997 instead of 19.02.1995 within a period of ten weeks from today.

16.03.2018 Kaushal

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for

the petitioner.

Mr. B.S. Parihar, Standing Counsel

for the State.

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher after successfully competing the Special B.T.C. Training on 29.09.2005. The petitioner was working in B.Ed. College, Haldwani. Thereafter, he participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Teacher, which led to the training and appointment on 29.09.2005. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 06.08.2011 on the basis of complaint that the petitioner has drawn salary from both places i.e. Government Primary School as well as B.Ed. College, Haldwani. The distance between two places is more than 100 kms. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice dated 05.09.2011. However, before waiting for the reply tendered by the petitioner, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer has never submitted any report. The petitioner is a permanent Government employee. The respondents, without holding any regular inquiry imposed penalty of recovery of Rs. 1,31,744/- and his two increments were withheld and he was also censured. There is a detail procedure, the manner, in which, the major penalty could be imposed. It could only be made by way of regular inquiry. The amount of Rs. 1,31,744/- could not be ordered to be recovered from the petitioner. The respondents could not become a judge of their own cause. Similarly, the censure order and withholding of two increments cannot be made without holding any regular inquiry.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 17.11.2011 is quashed and set aside.

Conclusion

16.03.2018 Kaushal

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

CC Nos. 1266 of 2017 and 1267 of 2017 In WPMS Nos. 726 of 2010 & 730 of 2010 Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.

Mr. S.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Siddharth Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General for the State.

Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the respondents/review applicants.

The original record was produced by

Mr. Lachchhi Chand, Nazul Clerk.

The Court has perused the record.

The same was returned to the learned Deputy Advocate General.

There is no error apparent on the face of record, therefore, the review applications are dismissed.

16.03.2018 Kaushal

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

WPMS No. 1922 of 2015

At the request of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner, list this matter after two weeks.

16.03.2018 Kaushal

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

WPSS No. 1402 of 2011 Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.

Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General for the State.

Recall Application No. 333 of

2018

There is error on the face of record. The recall application is allowed. The order dated 17.02.2018 is recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number.

WPSS No. 1402 of 2011

The case of the petitioner be considered in view of judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 648 of 2015 on 09.08.2017.

In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

16.03.2018 Kaushal

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

WPSS No.1404 of 2011 Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.

List this matter before the Court

no.8.

16.03.2018 Kaushal

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

WPSS No.1689 of 2013 Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.

At the request of Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner, list this matter in the next week.

16.03.2018 Kaushal

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

At the request of Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the petitioner, list this matter on 19.03.2018.

16.03.2018 Kaushal

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

WPSS No.755 of 2016 Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.

At the request of Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner, list this matter in the next week.

16.03.2018 Kaushal

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

WPSS No. 2261 of 2016 Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.

At the request of Mr. M.S. Rawat, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, list this matter on 19.03.2018.

16.03.2018 Kaushal

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

C482 No. 1687 of 2016 Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.

Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for

the petitioner.

Heard.

Time Extension Application No. 56 of 2018 is allowed. The lis be decided within a period of three months from today, failing which, the case shall be taken up on the administrative side.

16.03.2018 Kaushal

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

WPMS No. 939 of 2013

None is present for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Standing Counsel for the State.

The objection raised by the Registry be removed by filing legible copies within a period of two weeks. List thereafter.

16.03.2018 Kaushal

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

WPSS No.1763 of 2015 Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.

Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Advocate for the

petitioners.

Mr. P.C. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State.

Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for

the intervener.

The petitioners have come before this Court for quashing of the order dated 19.06.2013 whereby the cadres of Additional Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and Additional Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) were amalgamated. Thereafter, the Rules dated 01.09.2014 have been promulgated.

The case of the petitioners, in a nutshell, is that by amalgamation of the cadres, their chances of promotion have been reduced.

It is settled law that the amalgamation, bifurcation and trifurcation of various cadres are the policy decisions. The scope of judicial review in these matters is very limited, unless and until, arbitrariness is shown on the face of record.

It is well settled that the validity of the rules cannot be challenged merely on the ground that chances for promotion of one cadre is reduced.

Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

WPSS Nos. 350 of 2009, 541 of 2010 & 8 of 2011 Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.

Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. A.K. Arya, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. P.C. Bisht, Standing Counsel for

the State.

Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.3.

Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, therefore, the same are taken up together and decided by common order.

The petitioners are permitted to make a representation to the statutory authority i.e. Registrar / Sugar Cane and Sugar Commissioner, no.2 for Uttarakhand/respondent no.2 for redressal of their grievances within a period of three weeks from today.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. The Competent Authority shall decide the representation of the petitioners as per UP Payment of Retaining Allowance of Unskilled Seasonal Workmen of Sugar Factory order, and other ancillary laws, if applicable, by passing speaking/detailed order within a period of three months from today after the receipt of the representation of the petitioners.

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

WPSS No.933 of 2010 Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.

Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Standing Counsel for the State.

The petitioner has done M.Sc. (Agriculture) from the recognised University. He was appointed as Research Assistant (Agriculture) in Animal Husbandry Department. The State Government has issued Government Order dated 05.07.1989, whereby a decision has been taken to grant post graduate allowance to the employees working in the Departments (Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Medical and Primary Education). The petitioner has been appointed in the Department of Animal Husbandry. The employees working in the Department of Animal Husbandry are entitled to get post graduate allowance. What is to be seen while granting the post graduate allowance is, the Department concerned and not the cadre within the Department. The decision of the respondents not granting post graduate allowance to the petitioner per se is illegal and arbitrary.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.08.2009 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the post graduate allowance to the petitioner within a period of ten weeks from today alongwith arrear and interest @ 9% per annum.

Kaushal

Mr. K.C. Tiwari, Advocate for the

petitioners.

Mr. B.S. Parihar, Standing Counsel

for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that present petition has now become infructuous.

The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

16.03.2018 Kaushal

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

WPSS No. 1205 of 2014 Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.

At the request of Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner, list this matter in the next week.

16.03.2018 Kaushal

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

WPMS No. 2213 of 2015

Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.List this matter in due couse.

16.03.2018 Kaushal

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate for the

petitioner

Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. A.K. Arya, Advocate for the respondents.

The respondents are directed to place on record, the proceedings of the D.P.C, whereby the case of the petitioner allegedly stated to have been considered for promotion by the next date.

List this matter on 03.04.2018.

16.03.2018 Kaushal

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate for the

petitioner

Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. A.K. Arya, Advocate for the respondents.

The respondents are directed to place on record, the proceedings of the D.P.C, whereby the case of the petitioner allegedly stated to have been considered for promotion by the next date.

List this matter on 03.04.2018.

16.03.2018 Kaushal

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

WPSS No. 145 of 2012

None is present for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Standing Counsel for the State. Since the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed, therefore, the writ petition has now become infructuous. Dismissed as infructuous.

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

16.03.2018 Kaushal

WPSS No. 150 of 2012

Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.

There is no representation on behalf

of the petitioner.

Mr. B.S. Parihar, Standing Counsel

for the State.

The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution with liberty reserved to the petitioner to revive the matter, if so advised.

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)

16.03.2018 Kaushal