BIRENDRA PRASAD NAUTIYAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was entertained, in as much as, validity of amendment effected on 16th April, 2012 to Rule 4 (8) and (9) of the Uttarakhand Governors Secretariat and House Hold Establishment Absorption (Amendment) Rules, 2004 was challenged. Before the amendment, it was provided in Rule 4 (8) and (9) that employees working in subordinate department/offices of the State of Uttarakhand and in Corporation and other Autonomous Bodies under the control of the State of Uttarakhand shall be entitled to be deputed to the Secretariat and House Hold Establishment of the Honble Governor. By the amendment effected, people working in subordinate department/offices of the Central Government and State Governments as well as in Corporation and other Autonomous Bodies, under the control of the Central Government and State Governments, will be entitled to be deputed to the Secretariat and House Hold Establishment of the Honble Governor. No independent argument was made to show that the said amendment is otherwise invalid. It was, however, contended that the said amendment was made to facilitate absorption of the respondent no. 4, as the said respondent alone has been deputed from outside the establishment of Uttarakhand State Government to the Secretariat and House Hold Establishment of the Honble Governor. Assuming respondent no. 4 the lone person, who has been brought in, in the Secretariat or House Hold Establishment of the Honble Governor from outside the establishment of Uttarakhand State, that itself would not make the amendment invalid, because a reading of the amendment will not establish that the amendment has been made only for the purpose of benefiting the respondent no. 4. Advantage of the amendment will be available to anyone in the situation of respondent no. 4, namely, anyone in the establishment, outside the establishment of the State of Uttarakhand, but within the establishment of the Central Government or a Corporation or Autonomous Body under the control of the Central Government and other State Governments. In that view of the matter, Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Venugopal vs. Union of India, reported in 2008 5 SCC 1, as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application. Since, no other submission has been made as regards validity of the amendment, we have no other option but to hold that the said amendment is not interfereble.

(2.) THE next prayer in the writ petition is to restrain absorption of the respondent no. 4 on the post of Private Secretary. The fact remains, that the petitioner was absorbed in the Governors Secretariat on 18th November, 2004 and subsequent thereto, he was promoted to the post of Private Secretary and thereafter, to the post of Private Secretary Grade -I and later to Private Secretary Grade -II. At the time of filing of the writ petition, petitioner was working as Private Secretary Grade -II. In the circumstances, the learned Advocate General submitted that if the respondent no. 4 is absorbed as a Private Secretary, petitioner cannot be aggrieved by such absorption, as no legal right of the petitioner can be affected by reason of such absorption, in as much as, the petitioner is now holding two posts above the post of Private Secretary.

(3.) APROPOS that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no. 4 is getting more grade pay than the petitioner. In the writ petition, no challenge has been thrown for paying greater grade pay to the respondent no. 4, therefore, the said submission was no answer to the contention of learned Advocate General. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner could not be aggrieved, even if, steps had been taken to absorb the respondent no. 4 on the post of Private Secretary.