HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Bench No. 28 of 2017

23 April, 2025 Ashok Kumar Gupta & others … Petitioners Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents Presence:-

None present for the petitioner.

Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand Mr. L.K. Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

( Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioners have challenged judgment dated 17.12.2016, rendered by Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 51/DB/2014. By said judgment, claim of petitioners for benefit of past services, rendered in a different organization, for purposes of seniority in Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan was turned down. Relevant extract of the judgment rendered by learned Tribunal is reproduced below: “17. The petitioners had joined the services on deputation on their own accord and sweet-will without imposing any condition in respect of protection of their past services rendered by them in their parent department in Arunachal Pradesh before joining their post on deputation or while absorption of their services in Jal Sansthan and, therefore, after having been absorbed in the services of the Sansthan, their past services rendered in Arunachal Pradesh or Jal Sansthan cannot be counted for the purpose of determination of seniority as in the order of absorption itself it was clearly mentioned that the petitioners will be placed below the Junior Engineers (who were already working in the Sansthan) in the seniority list after their absorption.

18. Had the petitioners not consented to the terms of absorption, they would not have been absorbed in the first place. Thus, the petitioners first agreed to the terms and conditions in order to avail the benefit of absorption and then they are denying those very terms and conditions, to seek a benefit they are not entitled to after their absorption. In the circumstances, the petitioners are estopped from claiming contrary to the terms and conditions agreed pursuant to which they were absorbed in the Jal Sansthan.

19. As service rules did not recognize deputation of the petitioners as a mode of recruitment and a special one time provision was made to absorb the petitioners in the Jal Sansthan under proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2011 empowering the State Government to frame norms/ conditions of absorption, the seniority of the petitioners depended on the arrangement/ terms which were made by the State Government. The petitioners would thus, be borne in the Cadre of Junior Engineers in terms of the conditions laid down by the State Government in exercise of power under the said Rules.

20. The State Government made an offer to the petitioners for absorption with certain terms and conditions. The petitioners exercised their “right of election”. They could have accepted the said offer or rejected the same. While making the offer, the State Government clearly stated in the absorption order that the deputed Junior Engineers who are seeking absorption shall be placed below the Junior Engineers appointed in the cadre till the date of absorption. The petitioners accepted the said offer without any demur. The petitioners, therefore, exercised their right to option. Once they obtained entry on the basis of election, they cannot be allowed to turn round and contend that the conditions are illegal.

21. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioners have also not sought relief to quash the terms and conditions laid down in their absorption order dated 12.05.2012. In the absence of prayer to quash the absorption order and conditions therein, the petitioners’ prayer to quash the seniority list cannot be sustained.”

2. The relief claimed by petitioners in the claim petition filed before learned Tribunal, is reproduced below:-

“(i) In view of the facts stated in para 4 and grounds taken in para