Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ritu Bahri, C.J., Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
State of Uttarakhand & another - Petitioners
Versus
Bhagwan Singh Kainthura & others - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/B) No. 205 of 2024
Decided On : 20-06-2024
Merger - Employment - Merger Rules 2002 - The court upheld the Tribunal's decision granting merger and seniority benefits to employees based on their regularization dates, interpreting the Merger Rules to ensure equitable treatment among employees.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, former employees of Uttar Pradesh, sought merger into the Uttarakhand Secretariat after regularization under the 2011 Regularization Rules. They were denied merger benefits from their regularization dates, leading to a claim before the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal correctly ruled that the petitioners, having been regularized, were entitled to merger benefits from their regularization dates, aligning with the treatment of other similarly situated employees.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to merger and seniority benefits from their regularization dates under the Merger Rules 2002.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that once employees are regularized, they are entitled to the same benefits as others who were similarly situated, ensuring fairness in the application of the Merger Rules.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's decision.
JUDGMENT :
Ritu Bahri, C.J.
The present writ petition has been filed by the State / petitioners seeking direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the judgment dated 29.11.2022, passed by the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun, in claim petition No. 27/DB/2022, Bhagwan Singh Kaintura and others Vs State of Uttarakhand and others.
2. As per the facts given in the judgment of the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) the petitioners (respondents herein) were employees of different departments in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh. When the State of Uttarakhand came into existence on 09.11.2000, there was acute shortage of staff in the Secretariat. Employees of different departments and Corporations were attached to the Secretariat to perform various duties. In the year 2002, the Merger Rules came into being, and as per Rule 4(2) of these rules, such employees i.e. Personal Assistant, Junior Group Assistant, Assistant Accountant, Typist, Assistant Helper, who had been transferred in Secretariat from their respective departments were eligible for merger in the Secretariat. At the same time, all such employees who had not been transferred, but are working in Secretariat, were also eligible for merger, but from the date of their substantive regular appointment in their respective departments. On 10.03.2008, the service-transfer of 67 Group ‘C’ employees in the Secretariat, who were attached to the Secretariat were made eligible for merger from the date of their service-transfer, i.e., 10.03.2008, and all the 67 employees got their seniority from the date of their service-transfer. These 67 service-employees were regular employees in their respective departments.
3. The petitioners (respondents herein) had been working from 2002-2014, and their salaries were paid by their respective Departments and Corporations, and not by the Secretariat. The Annual Confidential Reports were recorded by the officers of the Secretariat under whom the petitioners were working.
4. Finally, the petitioners (respondents herein) were regularized in their respective departments on 30.10.2013, 01.02.2010, 08.05.2012, 02.11.2012, 17.04.2012 and 20.03.2012 under the Regularization Rules, 2011.
5. After their regularization, the petitioners (respondents herein) made representations for merger to the Hon’ble Chief Minister as per the Merger Rules of 2002. Subsequently, an order was passed on 03.01.2017 by the Secretary, Secretariat Administration Department (SAD). In December 2016, the Secretary (SAD) initiated the process of merger / service-transfer of the petitioners. As per the order dated 03.01.2017 (Annexure-16 to the claim petition), the case of the petitioners was recommended for merger / service-transfer on 23.08.2017 (Annexure-18 to the claim petition). Thereafter, as per directions dated 26.12.2018 of the Cabinet, a committee was constituted for merger of the petitioners, and some recommendations were made for merger on 26.03.2019 (Annexure-19 to the claim petition). On 18.09.2019, Government Order for merger of the petitioners’ services in Secretariat was issued.
6. Petitioners (respondents herein) being aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2019 made representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister to change their date of merger from 18.09.2019 to the date of their regularization. However, their representation was rejected and, thereafter, they filed their claim petition before the Tribunal.
7. After going through the detailed documents filed by the respondents (petitioners herein), the Tribunal examined all the documents filed by them. The Tribunal held that petitioners (respondents herein) were employees of different departments in State of Uttar Pradesh, and after formation of the State of Uttarakhand on 09.11.2000, these employees were attached to the Secretariat to perform various duties. Some employees were appointed on ad hoc basis in the year 2000, and they were regularized in
AI
Employees regularized under the 2011 Regularization Rules are entitled to merger benefits from their regularization dates, ensuring equitable treatment under the Merger Rules 2002.
The court upheld the constitutionality of the Merger Rules, 2022, emphasizing that policy decisions should not be interfered with unless they violate fundamental rights or statutory provisions.
The amendment to the absorption rules does not retroactively affect an employee's rights if no sanctioned posts were available for absorption at the time.
The court established that the reduction of the regularization period from 10 years to 5 years was a valid legislative measure to accommodate employees affected by the state's formation, but future r....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seniority of employees appointed on a fixed wage basis should be counted from the date of their initial appointment post the period of fiv....
The determination of seniority and promotions based on seniority rather than quota allocation.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
