Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1499/2024 on 8 August, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
1SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
WPSS No.1499 of 2024
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
1. Mr. M.S. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Addl. C.S.C. assisted by Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. Petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to count previous service of her husband rendered as 'Prashikshan Mitra' from 24.10.2000 till his appointment as Instructor-(Mechanic-Motor Vehicle); and a further writ of mandamus is sought directing respondents to decide petitioners' representation dated 05.06.2024.
4. It is the case of petitioner that husband of the petitioner was engaged with respondent-Govt. ITI, Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal as a 'Prashikshan Mitra' under the 'Prashikshan Mitra Yojna' on 24.10.2000. His services were regularized by the respondent- State on 08/10.09.2013.
5. 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.
6. Unfortunately, husband of the petitioner had died on 08.02.2014 during service, thus his wife has approached this Court, seeking the same relief.
7. 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 her may be directed to be decided so that she may not face any other difficulty.
8. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation dated 05.06.2024 Annexure Nos.13 to the petition) 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).
9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 08.08.2024 Arti