Back
2012 Supreme(UK) 68
2012 (1) UAD 421
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Barin Ghosh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice U.C. Dhyani
Writ Petition No. 203 of 2011 (S/S)
RAKESH KUMAR DIXIT – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents
WITH Writ Petition No. 968 of 2010 (S/S)
BRIJ NANDAN PRAJAPATI – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents
WITH Writ Petition No. 1035 of 2010 (S/S)
SHIV KUMAR RAI – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents
WITH Writ Petition No. 1102 of 2010 (S/S)
K.P. SINGH – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents
WITH Writ Petition No. 1120 of 2010 (S/S)
SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents
WITH Writ Petition No. 1195 of 2010 (S/S)
ER. VINOD KUMAR & ORS. – Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents
WITH Writ Petition No. 1237 of 2010 (S/S)
ER. MADAN SAIN – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents
WITH Writ Petition No. 156 of 2011 (S/S)
ER. R.K. VERMA – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents
WITH Writ Petition No. 846 of 2011 (S/S)
VIRENDRA SINGH – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents
WITH Writ Petition No. 914 of 2011 (S/S)
JAI PAL SINGH – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 27.02.2012
For the Petitioner:Mr. L.K. Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 1: Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4:Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6: Ms. Bina Pande, Standing Counsel
Headnote:Service Matter — According to understanding between the Governments of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand the petitioners shall remain in the Jal Sansthans where they were working as on the date of creation of the State of Uttarakhand and which Jal Sansthans were within the territory of the State of Uttarakhand — As such, the respondent Jal Sansthan of the State of Uttarakhand, had no authority, in law or otherwise, to relieve any of the petitioners purportedly to join the services of the Jal Sansthans situate in the State of Uttar Pradesh — Held that with effect from the date of creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the hill sub-cadre created by the State of Uttar Pradesh had been abolished — Since then, there is only one general cadre — Further held that the seniority of the petitioners at their present place of working, can only be counted on the basis of seniority that they have earned from the date they started discharging their service on being appointed. (Paras 3, 4, 7, 8)
lsok dk ekeyk & mÙkj izns'k ljdkj vkSj mÙkjk[k.M ljdkj ds e/; gq, le>kSrs ds vuqlkj ;kfp;ksa dks ml ty laLFkku esa jguk Fkk tgk¡ os mÙkjk[k.M jkT; cuus ds fnukad rd dk;Zjr Fks vkSj tks ty laLFkku mÙkjk[k.M jkT; dh lhek esa Fkk & bl izdkj mÙkjnkrk mÙkjk[k.M dk ty laLFkku] dkuwu esa dksbZ vFkok vU; izdkj ls ,slk vf/kdkj ugha j[krk Fkk rkfd ;kfp;ksa esa ls fdlh ,d dks mÙkj izns'k ds ty laLFkku esa dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus gsrq] dk;ZeqDr dj ns& fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k fd mÙkjk[k.M jkT; l`ftr gksus dh frfFk ls mÙkj izns'k ljdkj }kjk l`ftr fgy mi laoxZ lekIr dj fn;k x;k Fkk & ml le; ls dsoy ,d gh laoxZ gS & vkxs dgk x;k] ;kfp;ksa dh T;s"Brk dh] muds orZeku dk;ZLFky ij ml T;s"Brk ds vk/kkj ij x.kuk dh tk,xh tks mudh fu;qfDr ds mijkUr viuh lsok nsdj dekbZ xbZ gSA
¼izLrj 3] 4] 7] 8½
Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral)
All these writ petitions address common questions of law and facts and, accordingly, they are disposed of by the following common judgment and order.
2. Section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 authorized the State Government of Uttar Pradesh to establish Jal Sansthans. Sub-Section(4) of Section 18 of the said Act declares that once a Jal Sansthan is established, the same shall become a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall be entitled to sue and be sued by the name of “Jal Sansthan” as specified in the notification establishing such Jal Sansthans and have the power to acquire, hold or dispose of property. Section 27 of the said Act authorized Jal Sansthans, with previous approval of the State Government, to create such posts of officers and other employees and with such designations as it considers necessary for the efficiency performance of its functions. Section 27-A of the said Act authorized the Government to provide for the creation of one or more services of such officers and servants as the State Government may deem fit common to Jal Sansthans or to Jal Sansthans, Nagar Mahapalikas and Nagarpalikas in the State and prescribe the method of recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to any such service. The said section authorized the Director of local bodies or any other officer authorized by the Government to transfer an employee serving on any post in any Jal Sansthan or waterworks to any other Jal Sansthan of waterworks. On 23rd December, 1996, the State of Uttar Pradesh made the Uttar Pradesh Palika and Jal Sansthans Waterworks Engineering (Centralised) Service Rules, 1996. In terms thereof, Junior Engineers, working in Jal Sansthans, became part of the centralized service. The said Rules provided for an option to become a part of the hill sub-cadre. The Rules made it clear that such option must be exercised within three months from the date of coming into force of the said Rules and in the event anyone not exercising such option, he shall be deemed to have opted to remain in the general cadre.
3. According to the respondents, except the State of Uttar Pradesh, writ petitioners herein were appointed in Jal Sansthans situate in the plane areas of the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is also the contention of the respondents, except the State of Uttar Pradesh, that the petitioners did not opt for hill sub-cadre and, accordingly, they opted for general cadre. The fact, however, remains, to which there is no dispute, that each of the petitioners was working in Jal Sansthans situate within the territory of the State of Uttarakhand as on the date of creation of the State of Uttarakhand. According to the petitioners, both the State Governments agreed that the petitioners should continue to remain in the Jal Sansthans situate within the territory of the State of Uttarakhand. There are number of letters, exchanged between the Government of Uttarakhand, which, in clearest of clear terms, indicate that it was understood and agreed between the States that the petitioners shall remain in the Jal Sansthans where they were working as on the date of creation of the State of Uttarakhand and which Jal Sansthans were within the territory of the State of Uttarakhand.
4. We think that the said understanding between the Governments of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand was a correct understanding. The respondent – Jal Sansthan, a Jal Sansthan of the State of Uttarakhand, had no authority, in law or otherwise, to relieve any of the petitioners purportedly to join the services of the Jal Sansthans situate in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The said action on the part of the respondent – Jal Sansthan is without any basis and is not legally sustainable.
5. As aforesaid, the act in question was made by the State of Uttar Pradesh, whereby and under, the State of Uttar Pradesh created a central service, preserving the right of the State Government, t
