UMAPATI BHATT Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India for mandamus directing the respondents to give the benefit of service rendered by the petitioner with M/s. Teletronix Limited, Bhimtal for the purposes of calculation of pension, etc.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner had been in service with M/s. Teletronix Limited, Bhimtal, a Government undertaking upto 31-3-1996, i.e. the cut off date to relieve the employees under the retrenchment scheme formulated in implementation of Government order dated 30-12-1995. The retrenched employees including the petitioner were re-employed/readjusted in various posts lying in various departments of the State Government. The petitioner was appointed as lower division clerk with District Education and Training Institute, Bhimtal, Nainital under said scheme. The conditions of re-employment are contained in Government order dated 30-12-1995 and that of 26-2-1996. Para 6 of the Government order dated 26-2-1996 provides that the last pay drawn by the employee in the service rendered by him with M/s. Teletronix Limited will be protected. The other employees, namely, Sri Gyan Chandra Joshi and Pradeep Kumar Joshi have been given benefit of fixation on the basis of said Government order dated 26-2-1996. The petitioner also sought benefit of pay fixation on the basis of the last salary drawn in M/s. Teletronix Limited and forwarded his representation to Principal, District Education and Training Institute, Bhimtal which was forwarded to the Joint Director Education Kumaon Division vide letter dated 30-3-2001 for consideration. In its turn, the Joint Director Education also forwarded the same to the higher authorities but the Government has not issued any orders in this regard in favour of the petitioner. The inaction on the part of the Government is alleged to be violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. The petitioner earlier moved a Writ Petition No. 3367 (S/S)/2001 before this Court which was disposed of on 22-9-2003 and a direction was given to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order in the light of the Government order dated 12-6-1998 but the respondents even after being served with the copy of the judgment have failed to decide the representation. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) I heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.