BHAGWATI PRASAD JOSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit.

(2.) The question which arose for consideration in this writ petition is whether the respondent-claimant could have invoked the jurisdiction of the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, in the year 2018, questioning the order of absorption of the writ petitioner in the year 2004 as being contrary to the subsequent Government Order dtd. 13/12/2012, more than 14 years after the petitioner was absorbed in the year 2004, and more than five years after the Government Order dtd. 13/12/2012 was issued, even without an application being filed seeking condonation of delay.

(3.) While Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent-claim petitioner, would contend that the writ petitioner was ineligible to be absorbed as a Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer, and the subsequent entrustment of charge to the petitioner as a Deputy General Manager during the pendency of the O.A. was illegal, Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that termination of the respondent-claim petitioner's services, in the year 1999, was upheld by the Supreme Court, in its order in State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi: (2006) 1 SCC 667; and, consequently, he could not have been even regularized as an Assistant Engineer in the year 2012, giving him the benefit of his past services rendered in the U.P. Mandi Parishad from 1996 till the date of his regularization.