Uttarakhand High Court
Ganga Datt Sharma vs G.B Pant Universtiy Of Agriculture And ... on 4 April, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 UTR 498
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 527 (SS) of 2017
Ganga Dutt Sharma. ........Petitioner.
Versus
G.B. Pant University
and others. ...... Respondents.
Present:
Mr. M.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Advocate for the respondents.
Hon'ble Alok Singh, J.
1. Heard Mr. M.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Mr. M.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was initially appointed as daily wager in the respondent University on 22.02.2000 and worked till 27.12.2007.
3. He has further submitted that pursuant to the advertisement dated 12th /14th December, 2007, three candidates applied for the post of Data Processing Assistant in the respondent University and appeared in the interview held on 28.12.2007. Perusal of office order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure No.
3) would show that fixed stipend of Rs. 5,000/- per month fixed for the post of DPA and no other allowance will be applicable. Perusal of joining report (Annexure No. 4) would show that petitioner joined as Data Processing Assistant on 29.12.2007 on the consolidated salary of Rs. 5,000/-. Perusal of Annexure No. 5 would show that term of the petitioner was extended with fixed salary of Rs. 7,500/- per month and no other allowance.
4. Dr. Uma Melkania has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit, it is submitted that no evidence has been provided in the writ petition with regard to the 2 working of petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.2000 to 27.12.2007. However, on 29.12.2007, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Data Processing Assistant in Bioinformatics Sub DIC funded DBT Project on a fixed stipend.
5. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Advocate for the respondents has submitted that Regularization Rules 2013 is applicable only for the workers working on the sanctioned post from the State Government for the University not for the worker working in the Project.
6. Petitioner is not able to demonstrate any legal right for his regularization, therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Alok Singh, J.) 04.04.2018 SKS