PRATAP SINGH BHAURIYAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Pravesh Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Sri Manish Dalakoti, the learned counsel holding the brief of Sri D. S. Patni, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed in the Municipal Board, Nainital in the year 1966 and, by an order of the Municipal Board, Nainital dated 04th June, 1987, the petitioner was directed to work as a Revenue Tax Inspector. This order of the Municipal Board was passed in compliance of the order of the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital dated 04th June, 1987. THE petitioner, accordingly, started working as a Revenue Tax Inspector on a temporary basis. THE post of a Revenue Tax Inspector is a centralized post and is governed under the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Services Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1966). THE post was required to be sanctioned by the State Government since there was a requirement of work. THE Municipal Board requested the State Government to sanction the post since the petitioner had continued to work on this post for a considerable period of time. Since this was not done, the petitioner filed a writ petition No.131 of 2002 (S/B) praying for the regularisation of his services on the post of Revenue Tax Inspector and also prayed for payment of salary on the post of Revenue Tax Inspector w.e.f. 04th June, 1987 onwards. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the post of Revenue Tax Inspector was created in the Municipal Board, Nainital and instead of absorbing or appointing or promoting the petitioner on the post of Revenue Tax Inspector, the State Government chose to transfer one Subhash Chandra Rastogi from Kashipur to Nainital on the said post. This transfer order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1189 of 2002 (S/B) in which an interim order was granted directing the State Government to transfer the petitioner as a Revenue Tax Inspector in any Municipal Board and, only then Subhash Chandra Rastogi would be allowed to join as a Revenue Tax Inspector, Nainital. It transpires that this order was never complied with and no person was posted as a Revenue Tax Inspector and the petitioner continued to work as a Revenue Tax Inspector in the Municipal Board, Nainital. Eventually, the writ petition No.131 of 2002 (S/B) was disposed of by an order dated 04th June, 2003 directing the Secretary, Nagar Vikas Avam Awas, Dehradun to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of salary as well as regularisation of his services. Based on the aforesaid direction, the Secretary, by the impugned order dated 23rd September, 2003, rejected the claim of the petitioner either for regularisation or for payment of salary. THE petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) RULE 6 of the RULEs of 1966 provides the source of recruitment, absorption and determination of service of existing officers and servants. Sub-clause (1)(iii) of RULE 6 of the RULEs of 1966 is relevant, which is extracted below:-