Uttarakhand High Court
Tribhuwan Kishor And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 11 January, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No.39 of 2024
Tribhuwan Kishor and others ....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others .....Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/S) No.38 of 2024
Som Dutt and others ....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others .....Respondents
Present: Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Sushil Vashistha, Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J (Oral)
The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent/State, whereby, they have been directed to discharge the function of the Revenue Sub Inspector (Lekhpal) in District Haridwar. In the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are regular Collection Ameen with the respondent/State, and are posted at Haridwar. The respondents due to the administrative exigencies have directed the petitioners to discharge the duties of the Revenue Sub Inspector (Lekhpal) owing to the fact that the Revenue Sub Inspectors (Lekhpal) in District Haridwar have abstained from their work due to certain demands.
2. The contention of the petitioners before this Court is that the petitioners are not trained sufficiently to discharge the duties of the Revenue Sub Inspector (Lekhpal), and they are afraid of the fact that if during their discharging of the duties, which has been assigned to them, of Revenue Sub Inspector (Lekhpal), in any case, if any mistake would have been committed by them, their services would be adversely affected.
23. It is further submitted by the petitioners that there is an order dated 07.07.2022, passed by the Commissioner and Secretary Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, whereby it has been clearly stated that collection ameen cannot be directed to discharge the duties of the Revenue Sub Inspector (Lekhpal), and the said direction issued by the Board of Revenue, have been followed by the District Magistrate, Haridwar.
4. Day before yesterday, having considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court has directed the State Counsel to seek instructions as to under which eventuality the said exercise is being done by the State officials, whereby the petitioners are directed to discharge the function of the Revenue Sub Inspector (Lekhpal).
5. Today, the learned State Counsel Mr. Sushil Vashistha, on instructions dated 10.01.2024, submitted that it is purely a temporary arrangement owing to the reasons that the Revenue Sub Inspector (Lekhpal) in District Haridwar has abstained from work and in order to tide up the situation of the administrative exigencies, these petitioners have been directed to discharge the duties of the Revenue Sub Inspector (Lekhpal). In the instructions it is further submitted that the selection process of 49 Revenue Sub Inspector (Lekhpal), has already been concluded for the District Haridwar, and after completing the training from the Institute now they are undergoing working experience by their attachment to different Tehsils of the District Haridwar.
6. It is further submitted in the instructions that very shortly as soon as the said training is completed, the 49 Revenue Sub Inspector (Lekhpal) would get the charge, and accordingly, the dearth of the Revenue Sub Inspector (Lekhpal) would come to an end. The attention of this Court has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the instructions that the petitioners were entrusted with the work and discharging their duties of the Revenue Sub Inspector 3 (Lekhpal) vide order dated 27.03.2023, as well as the order dated 04.05.2023, and at present it is reflected from the instructions that there is no abstention of the work by the Revenue Sub Inspector (Lekhpal), and the instructions are therefore not complete and proper.
7. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that even if the abstention call made by the Revenue Sub Inspector (Lekhpal) is not there, but from the instructions one thing is reflected that the petitioners are discharging their duties only for temporary basis and that the said situation would shortly come to an end once 49 Revenue Sub Inspector (Lekhpal) would join the duties.
8. In this view of the matter, the action of the respondents of calling upon the petitioners to discharge the duties of the Revenue Sub Inspector (Lekhpal) is purely on temporary basis and yet to come to an end very shortly once the 49 newly appointed Revenue Sub Inspector (Lekhpal) would join their duties in District Haridwar.
9. Instructions are taken on record.
10. This Court finds no infirmity and arbitrariness in the action of the respondent/State. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the State/respondent that once the 49 Revenue Sub Inspector (Lekhpal) would join their duties, the collection amen shall not be directed to discharge the duties of the Revenue Sub Inspector (Lekhpal) as per the direction issued by the Board of Revenue.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
11. 01.2024 NR/