SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(UK) 267

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RITU BAHRI, C.J., RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Suresh Chandra Kandwal – Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 441 of 2022
Decided On : 20-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: M.C. Pant, Harendra Belwal.
For the Respondents: C.S. Rawat, Gajendra Tripathi.

IMPORTANT POINT
Service rendered as a daily wage worker must be counted for pension and gratuity benefits upon regularization, ensuring non-discrimination and fairness.

Headnote:

Regularization - Writ Petition - Uttaranchal Forest Department Regularisation Rules, 2003 - The court interpreted the rules regarding regularization of daily wage workers, emphasizing that prior service should be counted for pension and gratuity benefits, influencing the decision to grant the petitioner his rightful benefits.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a daily wage worker since 1980, sought to have his service recognized from 1991 for pension and gratuity benefits after being regularized in 2012. He argued that his long service should qualify him for these benefits, which were denied by the respondents.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had rendered continuous service for over 33 years and ruled that his daily wage service should be counted towards qualifying service for pension and gratuity, aligning with precedents set by higher courts.

Issues: Whether a person regularized under specific rules can be treated as regularized from a date prior to the enforcement of those rules, particularly regarding pension and gratuity benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the service rendered as a daily wage worker should be counted for pension and gratuity benefits, as denying this would be discriminatory and irrational, aligning with established legal principles.

Result: The writ petition is allowed, directing recalculation of the petitioner's pension to include prior service.

JUDGMENT :

RITU BAHRI, C.J.

1. There are 14 connected matters, including Special Appeals filed by the State Government against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 910 of 2021 and Writ Petitions filed by individuals seeking directives for regularization and benefits from the date of their initial appointment. For better understanding of the case, it is necessary to segregate Special appeals from the bunch and deliver separate judgment for the same. In this judgment, we are dealing with Writ Petition (S/S) No. 441 of 2022.

2. The petitioner in WPSS No. 441 of 2022 seeks a writ of certiorari and mandamus, directing the respondents to correct the date of the petitioner's regularization to 1991 as per the Regularization Rules of 2003 and the judgment dated 17.12.2021 in WPSS No. 910 of 2021. The petitioner also seeks all service benefits, including pension, gratuity, and other retirement dues, by counting daily wage service as qualifying service and granting the benefits of the old pension scheme with interest. Initially, the writ petition was listed before the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble High Court but was referred to a bench of appropriate strength vide order dated 21st March 2022 with the following legal question:

    “Whether a person, regularized under a particular Rule can be treated to be regularized from a date anterior to the date of enforcement of said Rule, especially when the Rule provides that (i) 'regularization' is to be made only after assessment by a Selection Committee; (ii) the date of regularization is to be treated as date of substantive appointment and (iii) a regularized employee is to be placed in the seniority list below other employees, regularly appointed in the cadre, before his regularization?”

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Cartographer on 04.07.1980 on a daily wage basis and continuously worked in that capacity. In 2011, respondent no. 2 issued an order to provide minimum pay scales to daily wage workers in the Forest Department, including the petitioner, whose name appeared at serial number 29. The petitioner's services were regularized on 15.09.2012 as a Draftsman (Maanchitrakaar) by Forest order No. 10/1-14 (4) Dehradun.

4. In 2021, the petitioner was promoted to Head Draftsman (Pradhan Maanchitrakaar) based on the D.P.C. recommendation dated 09.09.2021, with a pay scale of Rs 35400-112400/-. The petitioner retired on 31.01.2022, upon reaching the age of 60, as per the order dated 06.10.2021. However, neither gratuity nor any pension benefits were paid upon retirement.

5. The petitioner claims over 33 years of service, arguing that this duration should qualify for benefits under the Gratuity Act, as even daily wagers with five years of continuous service are entitled to gratuity. Similarly, ten years of temporary service qualifies for pension. The petitioner contends that the respondents erroneously failed to count his service as qualifying for these benefits. Despite multiple requests to the authorities, both oral and written, his pension remains unpaid, prompting this petition.

6. The policy of regularization was framed by the Government of Uttarakhand, Forest and Environment Section-vide issuing notification and framing rules namely “Uttaranchal Forest Department Regularisation (on Group ‘D’ Posts) of Daily Wages Appointment Rules, 2003.” Rules 4, 6 and 8 of the said Rules state as under:

    “(1) Any Person Who:

(a) was directly appointed on daily wages basis.......Group 'D' posts in the Forest Department under Government service before June 29, 1991 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules.

(b) possessed requisite qualification prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such appointment on daily wage basis under the relevant service rules, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available in the Forest Department in Group 'D' post, on the date of comme

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top