NAVIN CHANDRA MATHPAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The earlier set of litigation, the controversy was raised by one Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal, by preferring a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (S/B) No. 162 of 2002, Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, whereby, a mandamus was sought to treat the services of the petitioner therein to have been regularised w.e.f. 01.10.1990, in the light of the Government Order dated 21.11.1995. The said writ petition was considered by the coordinate Bench of this Court and following judgment was passed on 28.10.2004, relevant part is extracted hereunder:-

(2.) In the judgment, which was rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 28.10.2004, in fact, the matter was relegated back to the respondents with a direction to decide the representation in relation to the seniority of the petitioner therein. This judgment of the learned Single Judge was put to challenge by the State before the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 28 of 2005, State of Uttarakahnd and others Vs. Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal. The said Special Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 23.02.2006, against which a Civil Appeal being Civil Appeal No. 3396 of 2006, State of Uttaranchal & Ors. Vs. Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal was preferred by the State before the Hon'ble Apex Court, which too was dismissed and with specific observation in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 20.04.2011, whereby the Court has upheld the direction, which had been issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the direction was issued that the services of the respondents therein were to be treated to have been regularised in L.T. Grade w.e.f. 01.10.1990.

(3.) The matter was again dealt with in a bunch of writ petitions, with leading Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1008 of 2014, Trivikram Singh Kunwar and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, along with 15 other petitions, whereby the bunch of writ petitions was decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 03.01.2019, whereby the issue, which was agitated was for inclusion of the period of ad-hoc services, which was rendered by the respective petitioners prior to 01.10.1990, as to be treated, as to be a continuation to the service for the purposes of determination of seniority.