Uttarakhand High Court
Bhuwan Bhatt vs Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & ... on 19 August, 2019
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan, Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 1050 of 2018
With
Urgency Application No. 10656 of 2019
Bhuwan Bhatt .......Appellant
Versus
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & others .......Respondents
Mr. Devesh Upreti, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 3.
JUDGMENT
Coram: Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Dated: 19th August, 2019 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, C.J. (Oral) While the appellant-writ petitioner's claim to be treated as having been appointed as a regular employee on compassionate grounds from June, 2003 is unduly belated, and the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner for such compassionate appointment from June, 2003, an aspect which was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge was regarding the appellant-writ petitioner's claim to be regularized in service on par with his juniors.
2. In Paragraph Nos.27 to 29 of the writ affidavit, the appellant-writ petitioner states that, while he was placed at Sl. No.9 in the seniority list of contractual conductors, Mr. Durga Prasad was placed at Sl. No.22, Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht was placed at Sl. No.26, Mr. Abdul Ahrr was placed at Sl. No.28 and Mr. Mohd. Katil Akhtar was placed at Sl. No.29; all these four persons were till then working as contractual conductors; and they were all regularized in service, as regular conductors, in the year 2014. The appellant-writ petitioner claims parity in regularization with these four regularized contractual conductors, all of whom, the appellant-writ petitioner claims, were junior to him.
3. Since the Writ Petition was disposed of at the stage of admission without inviting a counter-affidavit from the respondents, it is not known whether or not the appellant-writ petitioner's assertions in the Writ Petition are true. Suffice it, in such circumstances, to modify the order under appeal to a limited extent, and direct the respondent-Corporation to consider the appellant-writ petitioner's claim 2 for parity in regularization with the aforesaid four individuals; and, in case the appellant-writ petitioner is found to have been appointed as conductor on a contractual basis before them, to then consider his claim for regularization on par with these four individuals, and from the date on which these four individuals were regularized as conductors.
4. The entire exercise, culminating in a reasoned order being passed and communicated by the respondent-Corporation to the appellant-writ petitioner, shall be completed within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
5. The Special Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
6. Let a certified copy of this order be furnished to learned counsel for the parties, by 22.08.2019, on payment of the prescribed charges.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C. J.)
19.08.2019 19.08.2019
NISHANT