SURESH KUMAR Vs. JAI RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts, which are reflected on record of this contempt petition, are that initially petitioner was appointed on 14.02.1995 with respondents on daily wage basis as a Driver. Subsequently, his services were regularized by virtue of order dated 15.09.2012 and at present, he is still working as Driver, after regularization of his services. The petitioner filed a writ petition being WPSS No. 2010 of 2016 (Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others) in which he has prayed for the following relief:

(2.) In fact, if the relief clause is taken into consideration, the relief sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition, was that the tenure of the petitioner as daily wager, should be counted, from the date of his initial appointment, as daily wager i.e. with effect from 01.08.1981 and to pay the entire service benefit; as well as retiral benefits including the pension by determining it with effect from 01.08.1981. Unfortunately, this writ petition was decided on 22.12.2017 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the basis of judgment rendered on 06.07.2017, in Writ Petition (SS) No. 1647 of 2016, the judgment which was subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 108 of 2014; on the basis of the ratio propounded by the Hon'ble Apex in Civil Appeal No. 10806 of 2017 (Habib Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others). In fact, the bunch of writ petitions, which was decided, it was decided on the basis of which writ petition of the petitioner was also decided, it was altogether based on a different set of controversy pertaining to the inclusion of period of service rendered by an employee, under the work charge establishment; for the purpose of including the said period for determining retiral benefits. This was not an issue in the case of the petitioner in the writ petition because the petitioner, in fact, had never worked in work charge establishment; rather ever since his appointment, he has worked as a daily wager and his services were regularized, as such. It was rather the petitioner himself had submitted before the Court to pass an order, based on the said judgment. The directions were issued in paragraph 50 of the said judgment, which reads as under:

(3.) In fact, the contention of the petitioner is that the pensionary benefit should be determined, after including the service rendered by him on daily wage basis is not an issue which was dealt with in the judgment rendered in the matters of the petitioners on 22.12.2017, for the following reasons: (i) Petitioner is still in service and is yet to retire. (ii) There was no issue for determination of seniority of petitioner from the date of his initial appointment as daily wager i.e. with effect from 01.08.1981. (iii) He never ever worked in the work charge establishment, therefore, the ratio propounded in the judgment 06.07.2017, as was rendered in the Writ Petition No. 1647 of 2016, would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner. (iv) Petitioner himself has not preferred any appeal, as against the judgment rendered in his Writ Petition on 22.12.2017; raising an issue before the Division Bench, that the relief granted to him in the judgment dated 22.12.2017 is contrary to the relief sought for by him in the writ petition.