Uttarakhand High Court
Lalit Chandra Tiwari And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 12 February, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
Reserved
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No.446 of 2020
Lalit Chandra Tiwari and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.1475 of 2019
Chandra Ballabh Chhimwal and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.1648 of 2019
Dinesh Chandra Budhlakoti ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.1704 of 2019
Uttarakhand Van Vikas Nigam
Scaler Sangh and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
2
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.1746 of 2019
Ishwar Singh and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.1767 of 2019
Mahesh Chandra Joshi and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.2084 of 2019
Prakash Chandra Bhatt ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Prem Prakash Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
3
Writ Petition (S/S) No.37 of 2020
Gopal Singh Negi ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.39 of 2020
Kunwar Singh Rana ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.40 of 2020
Sethpal ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.41 of 2020
Sunil Kumar Negi ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
4
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.43 of 2020
Heera Singh Adhikari ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.44 of 2020
Kamlesh Kumar ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.45 of 2020
Vidhya Sagar ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
5
Writ Petition (S/S) No.46 of 2020
Lalit Mohan Tiwari ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.47 of 2020
Ramesh Chandra Joshi ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.48 of 2020
Jaman Ram ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.49 of 2020
Surendra Singh ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
6
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.50 of 2020
Sunil Kumar Chauhan ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.51 of 2020
Birendra Singh Pawar ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.53 of 2020
Prakash Chandra Hemdan ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
7
Writ Petition (S/S) No.54 of 2020
Man Singh Rana ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.55 of 2020
Shasthi Dutt Pathak ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.56 of 2020
Bala Dutt Nainwal ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.57 of 2020
Daleep Singh Negi ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
8
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.58 of 2020
Najam Khan ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.59 of 2020
Baldev Singh Kandari ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.61 of 2020
Govind Singh Mehra ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
9
Writ Petition (S/S) No.63 of 2020
Vinod Kumar ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.64 of 2020
Ramesh Chandra Arya ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.66 of 2020
Satish Chandra Sharma ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.67 of 2020
Surendra Singh Negi ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
10
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.69 of 2020
Suresh Chandra Joshi ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.592 of 2020
Bala Dutt Mishra and Others ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.615 of 2020
Tikam Singh and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
11
Writ Petition (S/S) No.777 of 2020
Suresh Chandra Suyal and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.215 of 2021
Krishan Kumar Shrivastav and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.225 of 2021
Smt. Vimla Devi ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.226 of 2021
Kamla Devi ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
12
Present:-
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.276 of 2021
Prakash Chandra Pandey ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.553 of 2021
Nandan Singh Negi and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.558 of 2021
Vinod Chandra Bahuguna and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
13
Writ Petition (S/S) No.592 of 2021
Shambhu Datt Bhatt and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.702 of 2021
Hira Singh Koranga and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Vinod Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.828 of 2021
Prakash Chandra Tiwari and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.1299 of 2023
Padma Datt Joshi and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
14
Present:-
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.1300 of 2023
Kanta Ballabh Budhlakoti and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.1301 of 2023
Indar Bahadur Singh ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
Writ Petition (S/S) No.1683 of 2023
Satya Prasad Bijalwan and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Narein Dutt
and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation.
15
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the present writ petitions, they are heard together and being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts and documents are mainly referred to of WP (S/S) No. 446 of 2021, unless otherwise mentioned.
FACTS
2. Essentially the challenge in these writ petitions is made to the decisions of the respondents for refixing the date of entitlement of first Assured Career Progression ("ACP") to the petitioners and by doing so significantly reducing the salary of the petitioners. The main challenge is made to the following:-
(i) Letter dated 05.02.2019 of the Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand addressed to the Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment, Government of Uttarakhand, by which the special audit report was forwarded. Two discrepancies were indicated in the said letter, namely, - (i) that the services of the petitioners should be counted from 23.12.2002, when they were regularized, for the purpose of grant of ACP and not from any period prior thereto; and (ii) grade pay for the first, second and third ACP has wrongly been given because on 05.06.2007, the structure of the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation ("the Forest Corporation") was approved, which had both the posts of Assistant Logging Officer and Deputy Logging Officer in existence.16
(ii) Communication dated 14.02.2019 of the Managing Director of the Forest Corporation made to the subordinate officers of the Forest Corporation enclosing therewith special audit report for its compliance.
(iii) Government Order dated 27.05.2009, by which directions have been issued pursuant to the special audit. It has also raised two issues i.e.
(i) that since the petitioners were regularized in the month of December, 2002, their services should be counted from that date for the purpose of grant of ACP and (ii) that the posts of Assistant Logging Officer and the Deputy Logging Officer have not been merged in the State of Uttarakhand, therefore, accordingly the grade pay of first, second and third ACP is to be granted.
3. The recovery orders, notices and other related orders, including the orders rejecting the representations of the petitioners have also been put to challenge.
4. The petitioners were initially appointed as daily wagers by the U.P. Forest Corporation in different Divisions (except petitioner in WP (S/S) No. 226 of 2021). WP (S/S) No. 226 of 2021 has been filed by the widow of the employee, who was appointed as a daily wager in the U.P. Forest Corporation and after having served for 30 years died on 09.05.2018 when still in service. It is thereafter, his salary was reduced and pensionary benefits and 17 retiral dues withheld. In WP (S/S) No. 225 of 2021, the petitioner died during the pendency of the petition, thereafter, petition has been continued by his wife. But, for the sake of convenience, reference to petitioners in both these petitions shall also mean the deceased employee. In WP (S/S) No. 1704 of 2019, one of the petitioners is representing the scalers working with the Forest Corporation.
5. The chronology of the events of the case may be narrated as follows:-
(i) The petitioners were initially appointed as daily wagers, but they were not paid equal to their counterparts. Therefore, the petitioners' Association filed Writ Petition No. 4209 of 1988, Van Nigam Karamchari Kalyan Sangh U.P., Gorakhpur v. U.P. Forest Corporation & others, in the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad ("the First Writ Petition").
(ii) The First Writ Petition was allowed by order dated 19.09.1991 and the Court passed the following order:-
"In view of what has been indicated hereinabove the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to pay the Scalers and other Category-D employees including orderly, chaukidar, dakia, peon and fireman employed on daily wages in the establishment of U.P. Forest Corporation the minimum pay scales and other service benefits including the benefit of leave encashment, Group Insurance, gratuity, Employees provident fund etc. which are admissible to such workman employees employed on regular basis. A writ in the nature of mandamus is also issued commanding the opposite parties to fill up the sanctioned 755 posts of temporary scalers within a period of three months from amongst the scalers engaged on daily wage basis and also fill up 361 posts of Group-D category within the aforesaid 18 period from the date of sanction accorded by the State Government from amongst this workmen/employees working on Group-D category posts on daily wage basis. Opposite parties are further commanded to prepare a scheme for absorbing the daily wagers working on the posts of Scalers and other Group-D category posts engaged on daily wage basis into the regular services of the Corporation. It is further directed that till the daily wagers are not absorbed no appointment on the posts of Scalers or other Group-D category posts will be made on regular basis."
(iii) The special appeal against judgment dated 19.09.1991 passed in the First Writ Petition was dismissed and Special Leave Petition was also dismissed on 21.07.1992 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(iv) A Review Petition was filed in the First Writ Petition, which was decided on 12.07.1994. In the review petition, the judgment dated 19.09.1991 passed in the First Writ Petition was modified on various aspects. The relevant modification for the present purpose is in Para (xix) of the order dated 12.07.1994, which reads as follows:-
"(xix) All the group D workers and other field staff including the scalers appointed on daily labour basis would be entitled the minimum pay scales which their regular counter parts are given as directed by this Court in Writ Petition no. 4209 of 1988. They would also be entitled for dearness allowance, increments, medical and washing allowance etc. from the date of the order passed in Writ Petition no. 4209 of 1988.
Such workers would also be entitled for casual leave and leave on gazetted holidays. They would also be entitled to medical leave after they furnish medical certificates duly verified by the Incharge of Primary Health Centre."
(emphasis supplied)
(v) The petitioners were not regularized within the stipulated time despite the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 19 in the First Writ Petition (except petitioner nos. 1 to 6, 16 and 22 in WP (S/S) No. 1683 of 2023, who claim to have been regularized even prior to 1991 and this fact has not specifically been denied by the State. The claim of these petitioners shall be considered at an appropriate place.)
(vi) After the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the petitioners were regularized w.e.f.
23.12.2002.
(vii) On 26.08.2009, the Forest Corporation decided that the services of the petitioners shall be counted w.e.f. 19.09.1991 (this is the date when the judgment in the First Writ Petition was passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad).
(viii) On 14.09.2009, a decision was taken to extend the benefit of 6th Pay Commission to the petitioners.
(ix) On 15.07.2010, a decision was taken by the Forest Corporation that the reckoning date for selection grade shall be 19.09.1991.
(x) The ACP scheme was also made applicable to the Forest Corporation on 30.11.2011. It was specifically extended to the Forest Corporation by an order dated 12.12.2011.
(xi) In fact, the Government of Uttarakhand by the
Government Order ("the GO") dated
27.08.2012 decided that two years services rendered as daily wager shall be counted for calculating the time scale of the Scalers.
(xii) 7th Pay Commission was also made applicable to the petitioners by the GO dated 22.09.2017.
(xiii) The above facts are not disputed.
(xiv) The Forest Corporation got a special audit conducted, which noticed that the petitioners were wrongly given the benefit of first ACP w.e.f. 19.09.1991 because they were not the regular employees on that date. According to 20 the audit report, the ACP can be granted only when an employee is regularized. The grade pay that is permissible on 1st ACP, 2nd ACP and 3rd ACP was also questioned in the audit report. This audit report was forwarded to the concerned department of the Finance Department by the State of Uttarakhand on 05.02.2019.
(xv) The Senior Forest Officers forwarded this audit report to all concerned for taking necessary steps, on 14.02.2019.
(xvi) When the respondents proceeded to reduce the salary of the scalers vide proceedings dated 06.03.2009, it was challenged in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 667 of 2019. The Writ Petition (S/S) No. 667 of 2019 was decided along with Special Appeal No. 368 of 2019 by a Division Bench of this Court, in which on 06.03.2019, the Court passed the following order:-
"6. In the meanwhile, the Managing Director of the Corporation, by his letter dated 06.03.2019, sought permission of the Government to pay the petitioners' salary, as was being paid to them earlier. It is the petitioners' grievance that their grade-pay of Rs. 5400/- was reduced to Rs. 2400/- vide proceedings dated 06.03.2019; among the six petitioners, the fifth petitioner alone was issued a notice, and not the other five; the fifth petitioner had submitted his reply thereto; and by a bald order dated 06.03.2019, and without assigning any reasons, his representation was rejected as not maintainable, though the fifth petitioner had submitted an elaborate reply in support of his contention that his grade-pay should not be reduced.
7. The fact that no notice was issued to the other petitioners (apart from the fifth petitioner) has not been disputed by Mrs. Seema Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, who would submit that a general notice was issued to all the employees. As the Corporation seek to reduce the grade-pay of the petitioners from Rs. 5400/- to Rs. 2400/-, any such reduction could only have been 21 made after they were put on notice calling upon them to show cause why their grade-pay should not be reduced, thereafter giving them an opportunity of being heard, and to then take action in accordance with law after a reasoned order is passed.
8. Since the impugned order dated 06.03.2019, reducing the petitioners' grade-pay from Rs. 5400/- to Rs. 2400/-, is in violation of the principles of natural justice, the said order is quashed. In so far as petitioners 1 to 4 and 6 are concerned, the respondent-officials are permitted to issue a show-cause notice afresh, give them a reasonable opportunity of submitting their reply to the said show cause notice, pass a reasoned order dealing with the contentions urged by the petitioners in their reply to the show cause notice, and thereafter, if need be, take action in accordance with law.
9. In so far as the fifth petitioner is concerned, since he was already put on notice and was given an opportunity of submitting his reply to the show cause notice, suffice it to quash the impugned order dated 06.03.2019, and direct the respondent-Corporation to pass an order assigning reasons as to why the Corporation is of the view that the objections raised by the fifth petitioner, to the show cause notice, are not valid.
10. Needless to state that, since the impugned order dated 06.03.2019 is quashed, the petitioners would be entitled to be paid the grade- pay which they were drawing prior to the said order. Such benefit shall continue to be extended to the petitioners till a fresh order, in accordance with law, is passed by the respondent Corporation. "
(xvii) By the GO dated 27.05.2019, while taking cognizance of the audit report, directions were issued, pursuant to which recovery orders were made and salary of the petitioners was reduced.
(xviii) Some of the retired employees against whom recovery orders were issued also preferred Writ Petition (S/S) No. 626 of 2020 and other 22 connected matters, in which this Court, on 19.10.2022 passed the following order:-
"In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and others, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the excess amount, if any, paid to the petitioners cannot be recovered at this late stage, after their retirement.
Without going into other issues raised by petitioners in these writ petitions, writ petitions are disposed of by restraining the respondents from recovering any amount from the petitioners pursuant to the impugned order dated 05.02.2019. However, it is made clear that the respondents will be under no liability to refund the amount, already recovered from petitioners, pursuant to the impugned recovery order."
(xix) Thereafter, the Forest Corporation issued show cause notices to the petitioners. The response was given, but no relief was given to the petitioners. Hence, the challenge is made to the audit report, subsequent orders of the Government for refixing the ACP and grade pay of first, second and third ACPs, the order rejecting the representations of the petitioners and other related orders.
6. The State as well as the Forest Corporation has filed separate counter affidavits. According to the respondents, the petitioners were not regularized on 19.09.1991; they were regularized on 23.12.2002, therefore, for 1st ACP, the service of the petitioners shall be counted from the date of their regularization i.e. w.e.f. 23.12.2002 and not from any date prior to it. With regard to 23 the grade pay that is permissible to the petitioners on 1st ACP, 2nd ACP and 3rd ACP, it has been the case of the respondents that the Forest Corporation has been restructured on 05.06.2007 and accordingly the ACP would be permissible. According to the respondents, the structure and their pay scales, etc. are as follows:-
Sl. No. Designation Grade pay as per Next post for Promotion as per 6th pay structure commission 1 Scaler 1800/1900 Logging Assistant 2 Logging 1800/1900 Assistant Logging Officer Assistant 3 Assistant 2800 Deputy Logging Officer Logging Officer 4 Deputy 4200 Logging Officer Logging Officer
7. It is further the case of the respondents that the petitioners have wrongly received the benefit of time scale and ACP prior to their date of regularization, therefore, the respondents are entitled to recover the excess amount.
ARGUMENTS
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law for the following reasons:-
(i) The impugned orders were passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, which is violative of principles of natural justice.
(ii) A conscious decision was taken by the respondent authorities to grant service 24 benefit to the petitioners w.e.f. 19.09.1991, when the judgment was passed in the First Writ Petition by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and had also categorically taken a decision on 15.07.2010 to the effect that the service of the petitioners be counted w.e.f. 19.09.1991 for grant of the benefit of time scale. It is argued that now these decisions cannot be taken away without any cause; these decisions are valid and have been passed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court passed in the First Writ Petition.
(iii) There is no provision of conducting special audit.
(iv) ACP once given cannot be reopened. (v) The petitioners did not play any fraud or
misrepresentation, therefore, recovery of any excess amount cannot be made from them.
(vi) Many employees have already been retired having taken full benefit of the earlier orders dated 26.08.2009 and 15.07.2010, by which service benefits and time scale were granted to them w.e.f. 19.09.1991.
Now petitioners cannot be discriminated without any valid reason.
(vii) Under the Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation Act, 1974 ("the Act"), the Managing Director is the final authority;
the payment is made by the Forest Corporation; State Government has no role in such matters; therefore, there is no reason for the State Government to issue directions with regard to these matters.
(viii) The posts of Assistant Logging Officer and Deputy Logging Officer were merged in the year 2001; accordingly, ACP was granted;
now, subsequent change in the structure 25 may not deprive the petitioners of the benefit that have already been accrued to them. After merger, the structure of the Forest Corporation is as under:-
Serial Name of Post Corresponding grade pay as No. per 6th Pay Commission 1 Scaler Rs. 1900/-
2 Logging Rs. 2000/-
Assistant 3 Deputy Rs. 4200/-
Logging Officer 4 Logging Officer Rs. 5400/-
5 Divisional Rs. 6600/-
Logging Manager 6 Regional Rs. 8700/-
Manager
(ix) It is argued that in a similar matter, the grade pay of Assistant Logging Officer was reduced from Rs. 8,700/- to Rs. 6,600/-, which was challenged in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2679 of 2015 and the Hon'ble Court was pleased to quash the reduction vide judgment dated 07.04.2017 (which order has attained finality), observing as follows:-
"A very short, though, important question of law involved in this petition is with regard to the interpretation/ applicability of the order dated 23.02.2001.
The members of petitioner association were working as Assistant Logging Officer with the State of Uttar Pradesh. The State of Uttar Pradesh had taken a conscious decision to merge the cadre of Assistant Logging Officer with the Deputy Logging Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 on 23.02.2001. The petitioners were erstwhile employees of the Uttar Pradesh State Forest Corporation. The Uttarakhand Forest Corporation came into existence only on 01.04.2001.26
The stand of the respondents/State is that after the creation of the Uttarakhand State Forest Corporation, the cadre of the Assistant Logging Officer and Deputy Logging Officer is separate.
However, the fact of the matter is that the service conditions of the members of the petitioner association would be regulated vide Annexure No. 4 dated 23.02.2001, whereby the cadre of Assistant Logging Officer has been merged with the Deputy Logging Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-.
According to the provisions of Section 67 of the U.P. RE-organisation Act, no decision could be taken by the successor State to the detriment of the employees without consulting the Central Government.
However, this Court is of the considered view that this occasion has not arisen, since the Uttarakhand Forest Corporation came into existence only on 01.04.2001 and a conscious decision has already been taken to the advantage of the petitioners and similarly situate persons on 23.02.2001.
The Court's attention has also been drawn to Annexure No. 11 dated 08.07.2011, whereby the decision taken on 23.02.2001 is reiterated and implemented.
In view of this, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to implement Annexure No. 17 dated 06.11.2013 to grant the benefit to the petitioners as per letter dated 23.02.2001 read in conjunction with letter dated 08.07.2004 annexure no. 11 within a period of ten weeks from today."
(x) Prior to introduction of ACP scheme, Time Scale scheme was applicable and as per the GO dated 08.03.2011, by which ACP scheme was made applicable, the services which were counted for time scale benefits shall also be counted towards ACP benefits. It is argued that the time scale 27 scheme was made applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh by the GO dated 02.12.2000. According to it, first increment was to be paid after 8 years of "continuous service" and after 14 years of "continuous service", when the employee is "regularized", he was entitled for promotional pay scale. Undisputedly, this GO dated 02.12.2000 was adopted by the State of Uttarakhand on 12.03.2001.
(xi) It is argued that in order to grant first benefit under time scale scheme, the "regular" service was not required;
"continuous satisfactory service" was required; therefore, by the same analogy, it cannot be said now that the petitioners are not entitled to ACP benefits prior to 23.12.2002. (Although the main argument on behalf of the petitioners is that they have already been granted this benefit, which cannot be withdrawn because the benefit was given to them in compliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court passed in the First Writ Petition on 19.09.1991.)
10. On behalf of the State, it is argued that the GO dated 09.03.2019 authorizes reopening of ACP matters. The learned Chief Standing Counsel would submit that the GO dated 09.03.2019 categorically specifies that "regular service" means such service, which was rendered after recruitment as per rules. He would submit that this GO dated 09.03.2019 clarifies the Rules. For the purpose of ACP, it is argued that, only "regular service" is to be counted. He also raised the following points in his submissions:-
(i) Same matter has already been decided in WP (S/S) No. 626 of 2020 and connected 28 matters, therefore, it may not be agitated again.
(ii) The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court passed the order in the First Writ Petition on 19.09.1991, but the fact remains that on that day, the petitioners were not regularized, whereas as per ACP scheme, regular services are to be counted for grant of ACP benefits.
(iii) The petitioners were regularized on 23.12.2002, therefore, their services for the purpose of ACP shall be counted w.e.f.
23.12.2002.
(iv) In view of Section 23 of the Act, special audit may be done and in the instant matter, it is argued that it is the Forest Corporation who wrote a letter to the Accountant General, Dehradun for special audit and accordingly it was done.
(v) The GO dated 09.03.2019 has not been
put to challenge.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the Forest Corporation would submit that for the purpose of grant of ACP, the regular service is to be counted. The petitioners were regularized on 23.12.2002, therefore, their services w.e.f. 23.12.2002 may only be counted for the purpose of grant of ACP. She would submit that due to error, the petitioners were earlier granted ACP while counting their services w.e.f. 19.09.1991, but ACP was granted subject to the condition that if any error is revealed in future, it shall be corrected. Based on it, it is argued that an error, which has been noticed, is to be rectified and accordingly the ACP of the petitioners has been refixed, which is lawful, and excess payment 29 that has been made can also be taken back, because this was the condition of the grant of ACP.
12. In support of his contention, the learned Chief Standing Counsel has relied on the judgments in the cases of Tubewell Operator Welfare Association through its Adhayaksh v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Irrigation & Others (Writ -A No. - 3483 of 2003); The Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority v. Narender Kumar & others, Civil Appeal No. 1880 of 2022; Munna Lal Trivedi & 10 Ors. v. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. & others, Service Single No. 631 of 2012; State of Uttarakhand & another v. Bhuwan Chandra Pant & another, Special Appeal No. 790 of 2018 and Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray and others, (2017) 3 SCC 436.
13. In the case of Tubewell Operator Welfare Association (Supra), the writ court had held that part time tubewell operators shall also be entitled for other benefits for which regular tubewell operators were entitled, including the benefits of GPF, grant of promotion and selection grade, but this judgment was not upheld in the special appeal, wherein it was clarified that such petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of service including GPF, promotion and selection grade and pension treating their services w.e.f. the date they were regularized and not from any date prior to that.
14. In the case of Narender Kumar (supra), reference has been made to para 20 of the judgment, which is as follows:-
"20. The original scheme, i.e. the ACP scheme, (introduced by the OM dated 9-8-1999) granted career progression to Central Government civilian employees. Its intent was to extent relief for stagnation faced by 30 employees' due inadequate promotional probabilities. The ACP Scheme was introduced by the Central Government- with modifications-based on the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. That scheme, granted financial up-gradation after 12 years of regular service and a second, after 12 years of regular service from the date of the first financial up-gradation, subject to fulfillment of prescribed conditions. The relevant conditions, i.e. Nos. 5.1 and 10 are extracted below:
"5.1 Two financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme in the entire Government Service career of an employee shall be counted against regular promotions (including in situ promoation and fast track promotion availed through limited departmental competitive examination) availed from the grade in which an employee was appointed as a direct recruit. This shall mean that two financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme shall be available only if no regular promotion during the prescribed periods (12 and 24 years) have been availed by an employee. If an employee has already got one regular promotion, he shall qualify for the second financial upgradation only on completion of 24 years of regular service under the ACP Scheme. In case two prior promotions on regular basis have already been received by an employee, no benefit under the ACP Scheme shall accrue to him.
***
10. Grant of higher pay scale under the ACP Scheme shall be conditional to the fact that an employee, which accepting the said benefit, shall be deemed to have given his unqualified acceptance for regular promotion on occurrence of vacancy subsequently. In case he refuses to accept the higher post on regular promotion subsequently, he shall be subject to normal debarment for regular promotion as prescribed in the general instructions in this regard. However, as and when he accepts regular promotion thereafter, he shall become eligible for the second upgradation under the ACP Scheme only after he completes the required eligibility service/period under the ACP Scheme in that higher grade subject to the condition that the period for which he was debarred for regular promotion shall not count for the purpose. For example, if a person has got one financial upgradation after rendering 12 years of regular service and after 2 years therefrom if he refuses regular promotion and is consequently debarred for one year and subsequently he is promoted to the higher grade on regular basis after completion of
15 years (12+2+1) of regular service, he shall be eligible for consideration for the second up-gradation under the ACP Scheme only after rendering ten more years in addition to two years of service already rendered by him after the first financial up-gradation (2+10) in the higher grade i.e. after 25 years (12+12+1) of regular service because the debarment period of one year cannot be taken into account towards the required 12 years of regular service in that higher grade."
15. A bare perusal of the above paragraph reveals that it is with regard to ACP scheme, but the main issue in that case was not 31 on that aspect. Instead, in para 24, the main issue has been identified, which is as to what would be the correct date from which the ACP would be applicable to the employees.
16. In the case of Munna Lal Trivedi (supra), the case was decided based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad Court passed in the case of Suresh Chandra Tiwari & others v. State of U.P. & others (WP No. 3558 (SS) of 1992), which was upheld in the special appeal also. In the SLP, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed order as to from which date the petitioner would be entitled to the benefits.
17. In the case of Bhuwan Chandra Pant (supra), the writ court has held that the petitioners in that case would get benefit of their regular service for the purpose of seniority, ACP and other increment benefits, however, the services rendered by them prior to their regularization can be counted for the purpose of pension and this judgment was upheld in the special appeal.
18. In the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra), a question was posed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 13, which reads as follows:-
"13. It is clear from the above that the petitioners have been given pay in the regular pay scale. The petitioners, however, have joined issue by contending that orders dated 11-3-2016 do not carry out the complete compliance with the directions given by the High Court that on fixation of pay in the regular pay scale the petitioners are also entitled to increments of salary, as is given to the regular employees, on annual basis. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the increments?"32
19. This question has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 17, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "Thus, it follows that even if principle of "equal pay for equal work" is applicable, temporary employee shall be entitled to minimum of the pay scale which is attached to the post, but without increments."
20. On behalf of the petitioners, reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 28.08.2024 of this Court passed in Special Appeal No. 08 of 2018, State of Uttarakhand and others v. Raj Kumar Pal and another, and other connected matters, when in a similarly placed case, the ACP benefit was granted to the petitioners prior to the date of their regularization based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and it was upheld in the special appeal. This fact would be discussed in detail in a shortwhile from now.
DISCUSSION
21. The facts are not disputed as such in the instant case, but before proceeding further, the case of the petitioner nos. 1 to 6, 16 and 22 in WP (S/S) No. 1683 of 2023 requires attention. These petitioners have categorically stated that they were regularized on 14.12.1989, 15.12.1989, 25.10.1985, 12.12.1989, 13.12.1989, 15.12.1989, 11.12.1989 and 09.12.1989, respectively. In its counter affidavit, the State has not denied this fact. Merely, it is stated that it is matter of record. In so far as these petitioners are concerned, admittedly they were regularized much before 23.12.2002, therefore, there has been no question of refixing their ACP and the impugned orders qua them deserve to be set aside. 33 Principles of Natural Justice
22. In so far as the compliance of principles of natural justice is concerned, at this stage, there is no question of sending the matter back to any authority to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In fact, when the orders were passed by the respondent authorities refixing the salary, ordering for recovery, etc., writ petitions were filed in this Court and as stated earlier, directions were issued by this Court to the respondents to issue show cause notices before refixing the salary. Thereafter, notices were issued to the petitioners to show cause as to why their ACP may not be refixed. The petitioners submitted their responses/representations, but they were rejected. The matter has now been heard in detail by this Court. In fact, the petitioners have raised argument as to why their salary should not be reduced and as to why their ACP should not be refixed. This also amounts to affording an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the argument made on behalf of the petitioners on this aspect has less merit for acceptance.
Special Audit and Reopening of ACP
23. It is argued that special audit cannot be done; there is no provision of special audit and ACP once fixed cannot be refixed. On behalf of the State, reference has been made to Section 23 of the Act, which reads as follows:-
"23. Account and audit -(1) The Corporation shall maintain proper accounts and prepare an annual statement of accounts including balance-sheet in such form as the State Government may direct.
(2) The accounts of the Corporation shall be subject to audit annually by the Controller and Auditor General of India or any person authorized by him, and any expenditure incurred by him in connection with such audit 34 shall be payable by the Corporation to the Controller and Auditor General of India or any person authorized by him.
(3) The Controller and Auditor General of India or any person authorized by him in connection with the audit of accounts of the Corporation shall have the same rights, privileges and authority in connection with such audit as the Controller and Auditor General of India has in connection with the audit of the accounts of an Organization and, in particular, shall have right to demand the production of books, accounts, connected vouchers and other document and papers and to inspect the office of the Corporation.
(4) The accounts of the Corporation as certified by the Controller and Auditor General of India or any person authorized by him in that behalf together with the audit report thereof shall be forwarded annually to the State Government.
(5) The State Government shall -- (a) cause the accounts of the Corporation, together with the audit report thereon, received by it under sub-section (4) to be laid annually before each House of the State Legislature;
and (b) cause the accounts of the Corporation to be published in the prescribed manner and make available copies thereof for sale at a reasonable price."
24. In the instant case, what is argued is that there was a request made from the Forest Corporation for special audit and accordingly special audit was done. There are two aspects of it - (i) special audit and (ii) routine audit. Routine audit is permitted in order to verify the correctness of accounts. It cannot be said that special request for audit may not be made. There is another principle that wrong once done cannot be permitted to perpetuate and if an error is surfaced, all endeavours are to be made to rectify it. Therefore, it cannot be said that once the ACP is fixed, it cannot be refixed. This can be better appreciated with another example. Suppose, ACP is fixed based on some fraud or on some error i.e. misinterpretation of the Rule (s) or in ignorance of any Rule (s), 35 cannot such error be rectified? Definitely, such error may be rectified.
Role of the State Government and the Forest Corporation
25. One of the arguments that has been made by the petitioners is that the State Government has no business in the matter because all the salaries and allowances of the employees of the Forest Corporation are disbursed from the funds of the Forest Corporation. Reference has been made to Section 9 of the Act, which reads as follows:-
"9. Salaries and allowances - (1) The Chairman and non-official members shall be entitled to draw such traveling and daily allowances from the fund of the Corporation as may be determined by regulations.
(2) The Managing Director and other employees of the corporation shall be, entitled to receive from the fund of the Corporation such salaries and allowances and shall be governed by such conditions of service as may be determined by regulations."
26. The Uttarakhand Forest Corporation on 26.08.2009 passed an order that the petitioners shall be entitled to service benefits w.e.f. 19.09.1991. It is also admitted that the Forest Corporation on 15.07.2010 categorically passed an order that for the purposes of time scale, the services rendered by the petitioners shall be counted w.e.f. 19.09.1991. But, the fact also remains that under Section 23 of the Act, the Forest Corporation may make a request for audit and once audit is done, definitely remedial measures may be taken. Therefore, it cannot be said that since the petitioners have once been granted service benefit including the time scale benefit w.e.f. 19.09.1991, it cannot be re-examined. The matter can be examined.
36
27. In the instant case, request for special audit was made by the Forest Corporation and accordingly audit was done and the report forwarded to the authorities of the Forest Corporation, who acting on it have reduced the salary by refixing the ACPs. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the State Government has no role in the matter. The Authorities in the State Government have only interpreted the audit report and forwarded it to the Forest Corporation, the Forest Corporation has taken action on it. The legality/correctness of the audit report and consequential orders is under scrutiny in these petitions.
28. But, the sole question that remains for adjudication is as to whether the petitioners were rightly granted ACP benefit w.e.f. 19.09.1991?
Effect of decision in WP (S/S) No. 626 of 2020
29. Learned State Counsel has argued that since the matter has already been decided in WP (S/S) No. 626 of 2020, the matter may not be agitated again. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 626 of 2020 was filed by the retired employees against recovery of excess amount and this Court had directed that the excess amount may not be recovered. As stated, petitioners are similarly situated person, although they were in service when they filed their respective writ petitions. But, the petitioners still have a cause. The cause is that their salary should not be reduced and the ACP should not be refixed.
Correctness of the ACPs granted
30. It is argued on behalf of the State that the GO dated 09.03.2019 has not been challenged, which clarifies as to what is 37 the "regular service" and whether the issue of ACP may be reopened. This Court has already held that issue of ACP may be reopened in certain cases. This Court is proceeding to hear whether the grant of ACP was correct/lawful or not? Therefore, to say that since the petitioners did not challenge the GO dated 09.03.2019, they cannot argue on this aspect, may not be correct.
31. The GO making ACP scheme applicable in clear term lays down that for this purpose "regular service" is to be taken into consideration. This GO is dated 08.03.2011. As a general rule, it is not disputed even by the petitioners that for the grant of ACP only regular service is to be counted. But, the petitioners claim that they have a special case for the following reasons:-
(i) By virtue of order dated 19.09.1991 passed in the First Writ Petition, they are entitled to get their services counted from that date for the purpose of ACP and/or
(ii) The Forest Corporation has already granted them these benefits vide order dated 26.08.2009 and 15.07.2010.
32. It is also undisputed that prior to ACP scheme, there was a time scale scheme, which was implemented in the Government of Uttar Pradesh by the GO dated 02.12.2000 and it was simply adopted by the State of Uttarakhand by its GO dated 12.03.2001. Reference to it has already been made in the preceding paragraphs. At the cost of repetition, it may be reiterated that the first increment in the time scale scheme was payable after 8 years of "continuous satisfactory service"; after 14 years of "continuous satisfactory service", an employee, who is "regularized" was entitled for promotional pay scale. These two lines are important. The first benefit under the time scale scheme was not restricted to the 38 "regular employees", but this first increment was to be given after 8 years of "continuous satisfactory service". The word "continuous" is not synonym of "regular". "Continuous" means without break, whereas "regular" means an employee, who has been regularized as per statutory rules. These are two different concepts.
33. Although in this context, the learned Chief Standing Counsel has referred to the GO dated 09.03.2019 of the State of Uttarakhand to argue that as to what constitutes a "regular service". The GO dated 09.03.2019 cannot be read with the GO dated 02.12.2000 with regard to time scale scheme, which was adopted by the State of Uttarakhand by virtue of the GO dated 12.03.2001.
34. Para 3 of the GO dated 08.03.2011 by which ACP scheme was made applicable is important. According to it, the services that were counted for grant of time scale shall also be counted towards grant of ACP. Here, it is important to note that under the time scale scheme, first benefit of increment was to be granted only after 8 years of "continuous satisfactory service". That service was not required to be "regular". The second benefit under the time scale scheme was to be granted after 14 years of "continuous satisfactory service", but for it only "regular employees"
were eligible.
35. By virtue of the GO dated 27.08.2012 of the State of Uttarakhand two years' service rendered as daily wagers has to be counted for giving benefit under ACP scheme. To recall, the first benefit under the time scale scheme was to be given after 8 years of "continuous satisfactory service". If two years service is to be added 39 to it, it totally makes 10 years "continuous service", not essentially "regular".
36. The Government of Uttarakhand regularized the services of the petitioners on 23.12.2002. Even if the petitioners are treated non-regular prior to 23.12.2002 (though it is disputed by the petitioners, because as per the petitioners by virtue of the order dated 19.09.1991 passed in the First Writ Petition, they were regular and their service for the purpose of service benefits and time scale has already been ordered to be counted w.e.f. 19.09.1991 by the Forest Corporation by its orders dated 26.08.2009 and 15.07.2010), since they had rendered continuous satisfactory service for many years prior to 23.12.2002, these years were to be counted for time scale purpose. And, after completion of 8 years "continuous satisfactory service", they were entitled to first increment in the time scale scheme and after completion of 14 years "continuous satisfactory service", if they were regularized, they were entitled to second benefit under the time scale scheme. Therefore, in view of para 3 of the GO dated 08.03.2011, this period may also be counted for the purpose of ACP benefits.
37. There is another aspect of the matter. As stated and as a general proposition, time scale benefit is to be granted w.e.f.
"regular service" of the employee. But, instant is definitely a distinct case. A Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Bhuwan Chandra Pant (supra) has upheld the decision of the writ court for granting ACP and other benefits w.e.f. date of regularization, but for pensionary benefits prior services were counted. But, in that case, there was no order of any court.40
38. In the instant case, there is an order of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the First Writ Petition, which is quite extensive. As has been quoted above, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court had directed that the petitioners be paid minimum pay scales with other service benefits including leave encashment, Group Insurance, Gratuity, Provident Fund, etc. This order was subsequently modified, which has already been quoted above and the benefit of leave encashment, provident fund and group insurance were differed. But, in the order dated 12.07.1994 in the review of the First Writ Petition, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court categorically held that the petitioners should be entitled for dearness allowance, increments, medical allowances, washing allowances, etc. The word increments is important.
39. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has referred to the judgment in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra), in which case the Hon'ble Supreme Court while answering to a question posed has held that temporary employee shall be entitled to minimum of pay scale but without increments. That is a general rule, but in the instant case, there have been orders dated 19.09.1991 and 12.07.1994, of the Hon'ble Allahabad Court, passed in the First Writ Petition, that the petitioners be paid increment also, which have attained finality.
40. In this backdrop, the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar Pal (supra), as cited by the petitioners has to be considered. In fact, in the case of Suresh Chandra Tewari v. State of U.P. 1994 SCC OnLine All 1086, part time tubewell operators had raised their grievance before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as their nomenclature was changed and honoraria of Rs. 550/- per month 41 was fixed in lieu of pay. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court while allowing the writ petition held as under:-
"35. In the result, I allow all the writ petitions except Writ Petition No.1502 (S/S) of 1992 and quash the, Notification dated 20-2-1992 (as contained in Annexure-1 to Writ Petition No.3558 (S/S) of 1992) by which nomenclature of the petitioners has been changed to that of tubewell assistants and honoraria of Rs.550 per month has been fixed. The opposite parties are directed to pay all the petitioners the same emoluments i.e. in the same scale of pay in which other regularly appointed tubewell operators are being paid."
41. Some of those employees , who were covered with the judgment dated 18.05.1994 of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Tewari (supra), were granted ACP benefit, but it was reduced in the year 2016 by the State of Uttarakhand. That decision was challenged in the case of Raj Kumar Pal (supra) and other connected matters. The Court observed as follows:-
"5. Thereafter, all the similar situated persons were accorded the benefits of the judgment dated 03.03.2008 and in continuation thereto, petitioners were also granted benefit of two ACPs in the year 1992 & 1998 on the basis of their qualifying service. Petitioners have been granted benefit of parity at par with regularly appointed Tube-well operators, by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court which was upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court. This parity could not be disturbed by Office Order dated 02.12.2000. Moreover, the certain valuable rights have accrued to the petitioners on the basis of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of Section 74 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000. It is apparent that State/respondent was aware of the order dated 02.12.2000 when the Ist ACP was granted to them on 18.05.1992 and thereafter on 18.05.1998. ACPs were released on the basis of law declared by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The matter is required to be considered from another angle. Petitioners have not been 42 issued any show cause notice before issuance of letter dated 23.08.2016 and consequential order dated 31.08.201
6. The Court is of the view that petitioners are entitled to ACPs on the basis of length of service w.e.f. 1990-91, though they have been regularized in the service in the year 2013-14.
7. The petitioners belong to lowest strata of the society, Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme in various judgments have held that no recovery should be affected from the lowly paid employees."
(emphasis supplied)
42. The judgment dated 29.03.2017 passed by the writ court in the case of Raj Kumar Pal (supra) was challenged in Special Appeal No. 08 of 2018 by the State Government and while dismissing the special appeal, in para 12 of the judgment passed, the Hon'ble Division Bench observed as follows:-
"12. Even in the present case, the benefit of 1st and 2nd ACP was granted to the respondents-writ petitioners, as per the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 18.05.1994, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated on 03.03.1998, and recovery was being sought to be made in the year 2016, after a gap of 24 years."
43. The directions that were passed in the instant case by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the First Writ Petition on 19.09.1991 were quite extensive. Almost all the benefits were given to the petitioners. Even when the judgment dated 19.09.1991 was reviewed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court by order dated 12.07.1994, still the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court had directed to pay the increments to the petitioners, whereas in the case of Suresh Chandra Tewari (supra), it was directed that the petitioner in that case be paid emoluments in the same scale of pay in which the other regularly appointed tubewell operators are being paid and 43 based on it, when ACP was granted, that was upheld in the case of Raj Kumar Pal (supra) by this Court.
44. The principle of law as laid down in the case of Raj Kumar Pal (supra) definitely applies to the instant case. This court cannot take a different view. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioners were rightly granted benefit of ACP counting their service w.e.f. 19.09.1991, when the judgment was passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad.
ACP and Grade Pay
45. This Court has already held that the services of the petitioners are to be counted from 19.09.1991 for the purposes of grant of ACP benefit. There is another objection of the respondents that the grade pay for the first, second and third ACP has wrongly been granted. This has been so objected on the ground that the post of Assistant Logging Officer and the Deputy Logging Officers have not been merged in the State of Uttarakhand. This issue is no more res integra. Because, the Forest Corporation had earlier reduced the grade pay of the Assistant Logging Officer on the same ground. Those Assistant Logging Officers had filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2679 of 2015 before this Court, which was allowed. The portion of the judgment passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2679 of 2015 has already been quoted hereinbefore while referring to the arguments made on behalf of the petitioners. However, at the cost of repetition, it may be noted that this Court had then observed that "However, this Court is of the considered view that this occasion has not arisen, since the Uttarakhand Forest Corporation came into existence only on 01.04.2001 and a 44 conscious decision has already been taken to the advantage of the petitioners and similarly situate persons on 23.02.2001". The Court thereafter observed that "The Court's attention has also been drawn to Annexure No. 11 dated 08.07.2011, whereby the decision taken on 23.02.2001 is reiterated and implemented" and finally while allowing the writ petition, the Court observed that "In view of this, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to implement Annexure No. 17 dated 06.11.2013 to grant the benefit to the petitioners as per letter dated 23.02.2001 read in conjunction with letter dated 08.07.2004 annexure no. 11 within a period of ten weeks from today".
46. The case of the petitioners on this point of Grade Pay on ACPs is similar to the case of the petitioners in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2679 of 2015. The issue has already been decided. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the petitioners were granted the first, second and third ACP by giving them wrong grade pay. Resultantly, this Court is of the view that the petitioners were granted the first, second and third ACP in accordance with law as per Rules and it does not warrant any interference. Recovery
47. The challenge is also made to orders of recovery. This Court has already held that the petitioners were rightly granted ACP counting their service w.e.f. 19.09.1991, therefore, there is no question of any recovery.
45
48. In fact, on behalf of the State, it has fairly been conceded that the State is not going for recovery. Similarly situated employees, who have already retired had filed a bunch of writ petitions, which has been referred to above, i.e. WP (S/S) No. 626 of 2020 and other connected matters. In that case, this Court has already held that in view of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536, excess amount, if any, paid to the petitioners of those cases cannot be recovered. The petitioners in the sense are similarly situated persons. In the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered this aspect of recovery from Government employee and in para 18 of the judgment observed as follows:-
"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would 46 be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
49. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioners did not make any misrepresentation or did not play any fraud. They have been duly paid ACP benefits pursuant to the orders passed by the authorities. Therefore, for this reason also, no recovery may be made from the petitioners.
50. In a nutshell, this Court concludes as below:-
(i) The petitioners were rightly granted ACP counting their service w.e.f. 19.09.1991.
(ii) While granting the benefits of ACPs, the petitioners were rightly given the Grade Pay.
(iii) Since the petitioners were rightly paid salary, there is no question of any recovery from them.
51. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that the writ petitions deserve to be allowed and the impugned orders dated 05.02.2019, 14.02.2019, 27.05.2019 and other consequential impugned orders/notices deserve to be quashed.
52. The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 05.02.2019, 14.02.2019, 27.05.2019 and other consequential orders/notices are quashed.
53. The respondents are directed to pay full salary to the petitioners as was paid to them prior to issuance of the impugned orders.
47
54. The respondents shall also pay the petitioners all the arrears and other consequential increments, etc. It shall be paid within a period of three months from now.
55. The retiral dues/benefits of deceased employee Diwan Giri Goswami, the husband of petitioner Kamla Devi in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 226 of 2021 and of all other petitioners (if any), who have retired during the pendency of these writ petitions, shall be paid by the respondents within a period of three months from today.
56. On the basis of the impugned orders/notices, no recovery shall be made from the petitioners.
(Ravindra Maithani, J) 12.02.2025 Avneet/