Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

WPSS/744/2024 on 2 May, 2024

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                Office Notes, reports,
                orders or proceedings
SL. No   Date     or directions and                                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
                Registrar's order with
                      Signatures
                                         WPSS No.744 of 2024
                                         Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. M.S. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned S.C. for the State.

3. Petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to count his previous service rendered as 'Prashikshan Mitra' from 28/12.2001 till his appointment as Instructor-Welder; and a further writ of mandamus is sought directing respondents to decide petitioners' representation dated 08.02.2024 and 21.04.2024.

4. It is the case of petitioner that he was engaged with respondent-Govt. ITI, Kashipur as a 'Prashikshan Mitra' under the 'Prashikshan Mitra Yojna' on 28.12.2001. His services were regularized by the respondent- State on 20.06.2016. It is contended by petitioner that some of the persons whose services were also regularized in the year 2014 approached this Court by filing WPSS No.2684 of 2015 (Balraj Singh v. State) for inclusion of previous service rendered by them for all intents and purposes. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 05.07.2018. The matter was taken up in appeal by the State by filing a bunch of special appeals, leading case being SPA No.940 of 2018 (State v. Balraj Singh), however the said appeals were disposed of by the Division Bench with a modification that the benefit of service rendered by respondent-writ petitioner (Balraj Singh Negi) prior to his regular appointment would be counted only for the purpose of pension. The said benefit was made applicable in cases of other respondents as well.

2

5. Petitioner, who is scheduled to retire in the month of September, 2026, has approached this Court seeking the same relief.

6. Having viewed the case in that angle, the present petition appears to be premature at this stage. To this, learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the representation(s) moved by him may be directed to be decided so that after his retirement, he may not face any other difficulty.

7. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation dated 08.02.2024 and 21.04.2024 (Annexure Nos.12 and 14 to the petition respectively) within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Needless to state that the decision should be passed by a reasoned and speaking order keeping in mind the judgment dated 10.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in SPA No.940 of 2018 (Supra).

8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 02.05.2024 R.Dang