STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. CHANDRA SHEKHAR JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a writ petition, petitioner approached the Honble Allahabad High Court and contended that he was engaged with effect from 19th May, 1990, as a daily wage Draughtsman and after having had worked in such capacity for a considerable period of time, no sooner he asked for payment of salary at least in the minimum scale of pay applicable to Draughtsman, he was stopped from discharging his duties as a daily wage Draughtsman. On this writ petition, an interim order was passed, directing payment of salary to the petitioner in the minimum scale applicable to Draughtsman. Subsequently, this writ petition was decided alongwith many other writ petitions, when there was no pronouncement that the petitioner was, in fact, appointed as a daily wage Draughtsman. While, however, deciding the said writ petition alongwith other writ petitions, Honble Allahabad High Court issued a direction upon the State to constitute a committee and through the said committee to scrutinize the matters pertaining to engagement of different daily wagers including the petitioner. A committee thereupon considered the case of the petitioner and held that the petitioner was not engaged as a daily wage Draughtsman, he was engaged as a daily wage Class-IV employee. Despite holding thus, the committee felt that in view of the judgment of Umadevi (State of Karnataka versus Umadevi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1) and the engagement of the petitioner being not by the competent authority, there is no scope of regularization of the petitioner. IN the circumstances, the petitioner filed yet another writ petition. On the writ petition, a reference was made to a larger Bench for answer of certain legal questions. The larger Bench found that those legal questions do not arise in the matter. It held that since the principal dispute is, whether the petitioner was appointed as a daily wage Draughtsman or as a Class-IV daily wager, the same can be decided by the writ court itself and, accordingly, remitted the matter back. Thereupon the writ court directed appropriate inquiries to be made in relation to two certificates, upon which reliance had been placed by the petitioner to establish that he was engaged as a daily wage Draughtsman. INquiry was made and it was found that those two certificates were genuine, namely, those have been genuinely issued by officers of the State, who are said to have issued the same.

(2.) THEREUPON the writ petition was taken up for hearing before a learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, according to us, correctly held that the ratio of the judgment rendered in Umadevis case (supra) has no application to the case in question, on the other hand, petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh versus Putti Lal, reported in [(1998) 1 UPLBEC 313]. The learned Single Judge thereupon looked into those certificates and held that in view of the said certificates, which are otherwise genuine, petitioner should be paid the minimum pay scale of Draughtsman. This judgment was rendered on 30th June, 2009 and prior thereto petitioner was regularized as a Forest Guard, a post available in Class-IV.