ASHUTOSH JOSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners before this Court are lecturers in various Government Intermediate Colleges in the State. The common factor in case of all the petitioners is that they were applicants in the recruitment process which was initiated by the Government vide advertisement dated 5.10.2003 which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition, whereby the State Public Service Commission had advertised various vacancies for the different posts in different intermediate colleges in the State. Total vacancies for men were 1120 and for women were 99. The present petitioners applied for said posts in which they appeared in written examination which was held on 26.9.2004. Thereafter the viva voce of women candidate was conducted between 7.7.2005 to 15.7.2005 and viva voce of men candidate was conducted between 22.8.2005 to 10.3.2006. Thereafter the result of women candidates was published between 27.7.2005 and 23.8.2005. Regarding men candidates result was published, subject -wise, between 24.9.2005 to 15.9.2006. Subsequent to the publication of the result, the petitioners were given appointment letter and now they are teaching in different colleges of the State. All of them are presently aggrieved by the Government Order dated 25.10.2005 according to which pensionary benefits are only liable to be given to such government employees who were inducted in service on or before 30.9.2005. Meaning thereby, those who were inducted in service after 30.9.2005, will not be given pensionable benefits.

(2.) LEARNED Standing Counsel for the State has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 30.1.2009 which is Annexure CA 1 to the counter affidavit filed by the State, whereby the Uttarakhand Retirement Benefits (Amendment) Rules, 2009 have been published which have a retrospective application from 1.10.2005 and which clearly stipulate that pensionable benefit will not be given to those employees who have been inducted in service from 1.10.2005 onwards.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioners, on the other hand, is that in the advertisement dated 5.10.2003, it has been clearly stated that all the posts for which the selection is to take place are pensionable posts. This fact has been admitted by the learned Standing Counsel. Moreover, it has been further argued that once the selection process had started and it was clearly stipulated in the advertisement that the posts which were advertised by the Commissioner were pensionable post, this condition could not have been changed to the detriment of the selected candidates.