Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 359
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RITU BAHRI, C.J., RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
State and Others – Appellants
Versus
Diwan Singh Aithani and Others – Respondents
Special Appeal No. 425, 438, 455 of 2022
Decided On : 24-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : C.S. Rawat.
For the Respondent: Lalit Samant.
IMPORTANT POINT
Service rendered before provincialization is relevant for ACP benefits but not for seniority due to binding conditions of provincialization.
Headnote:
Benefit - ACP - Government Orders - The court affirmed the learned Single Judge's decision to grant ACP benefits based on service rendered before provincialization, while denying seniority computation due to bond conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought ACP benefits for service rendered in institutions before their provincialization, which the State denied, arguing that only post-provincialization service should count.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Single Judge's ruling on ACP benefits, stating that prior service cannot be ignored, but rejected the claim for seniority due to bond conditions.
Issues: Whether the period of service rendered in aided institutions before provincialization should be counted for ACP benefits and seniority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that while prior service counts for ACP benefits, it does not affect seniority due to the conditions set forth in the provincialization bond.
Result: The appeal is allowed in part; ACP benefits are granted, but seniority computation is denied.
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
1. Since, subject matter of all these appeals are identical and decided by the learned Single Judge by a common judgment, and, therefore, all these appeals are being decided together with the consent of the counsel for the parties by a common judgment.
2. The respondents/petitioners preferred the writ petitions with a relief that the respondents/appellants be directed to give benefit of ACP after computing the period which they have rendered in the institutions which are under the purview of grant-in-aid before the provincialization of the institution. In addition to this relief of arrear of ACP was also sought along with interest.
3. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 14.12.2021, allowed all the writ petitions and directions were issued to determine the extension of benefit of ACP to the petitioners/respondents after including the period of service which had been rendered by them in the institutions prior to its provincialization and the said period be also included for the purposes of extension of other service benefits including seniority.
4. We perused the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, and after going through the judgment admittedly the petitioners/respondents were serving in the institution which was in fact within the purview of grant-in-aid. Subsequently, all these institutions were provincialized meaning thereby affairs of managing these institutions were taken over by the State Government. The issue, as raised in the petition, was with regard to the grant of benefit of ACP in terms of 1st, 2nd and 3rd ACP on completion of period of 10, 18, 26 years respectively.
5. This benefit was denied by the State on the ground that for computing the required period of service for grant of ACP, i.e., 10, 18 and 26 years period which they have rendered in the institution (within the purview of grant-in-aid before provincialization) cannot be taken into consideration.
6. The said action of the State/appellants denying the said benefit by computing the period which they have rendered in the non provincialized institution, i.e. institution which was earlier within the purview of grant-in-aid but subsequently provincialized is that the institutions which were within the purview of grant-in-aid prior to the provincialization were challenged on the ground that they have been engaged in services by due process of law against the substantive post, and, merely on the ground that these institutions were provincialized later on, the benefit for grant of ACP cannot be denied by non computing the period which they have rendered in the institution prior to the provincialization.
7. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is challenged in these appeals by the State on the ground that for the purposes of grant of benefit of ACP, the date when the institutions were pronvicialized would be relevant for the purposes of computation of length of service, therefore, for all purposes their substantive appointment is the date when the institutions were brought within the purview of grant in aid, and, as such, giving benefit of ACP by including their period of service as rendered by them prior to the date of provincialization is not feasible as per rules.
8. Another ground which has been taken is that the Government Order dated 08.10.2003, followed by another Government Order dated 27.09.2016, which pertains to the provincialization of aided institutions wherein it has been clarified that on provincialization of the aided school, the employees/teachers working therein have to furnish a bond that they will be kept at bottom in the seniority. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the provincialization of the institution was done as per the demand of the employees and the proposal submitted by the Management Committee of the Institution and once the bond has been given then the petitioners/ respondents cannot claim seniority by computing the period which they have ren
