GIRISH KUMAR JAGTA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDISPUTEDLY , petitioner was given ad -hoc appointment on the permanent post of Lab Assistant available in Government Ayurvedic College, Gurukul Kangri, Haridwar on 23.04.1976. Perusal of the appointment letter dated 23.04.1976 would reveal that appointment offered to the petitioner was neither a tenure appointment nor was of a limited period. Petitioner gave his joining pursuant to the appointment letter dated 23.04.1976 on 05.05.1976. Petitioner regularly and continuously worked on the post of Lab Assistant in Government Ayurvedic College, Gurkul Kangri, Haridwar and stood retired on 31st July, 2010 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. Petitioner was denied pensionary benefits saying since, services of the petitioner were never regularized or in other words petitioner was never confirmed, therefore, petitioner was not entitled for pensionary benefits.

(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY , State of U.P. on 1st July, 1989 has issued one Government Order to the effect that such temporary government employees who have worked continuously and stood retired without confirmation of the services would also be entitled for the pensionary benefits. As per Section 87 of the U.P. Re -organisation Act, 2000, any law made before the appointed day shall be applicable in the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) until altered, repealed or amended by the competent Legislature or other competent authority of the State of Uttarakhand. As per section 2(f) of the Act, "law" includes any enactment, ordinance, regulation, order, bye -law, rule, scheme, notification or other instrument having, immediately before the appointed day, the force of law in the whole or in any part of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, in the humble opinion of this Court, Government Order/notification dated 1st July, 1989 has full application within the territory of Uttarakhand in view of the fact it has never been repealed or modified by the State of Uttarakhand after the appointed day.

(3.) IN view of the dictum of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Madan Mohan Chaudhary (Supra), temporary employees on regular post shall also be entitled for pensionary benefits treating them akin to permanent employees.