BHANU PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) Brief facts, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of part-time Tube-Well Operator on 28.03.1983. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 30.08.1986. Being aggrieved, petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Haldwani which was registered as case no.38 of 1990. Vide judgment and order dated 19.10.1992, Labour Court decided the matter in favour of the petitioner and he was reinstated in service along with previous back wages. Respondent department, challenged the Award passed by the Labour Court before the Allahabad High Court by filing a Writ Petition No.2823 of 1993, wherein the operation of the Award was stayed subject to the condition that the employer shall reinstate the workman/petitioner and shall pay his regular salary and shall also deposit half of the back wages from 30th June 1986 to 21.05.1993. After bifurcation of the State of U.P., the said writ petition got transferred to this Court. As the authorities did not comply with the order dated 21.05.1993, petitioner filed a contempt petition before this Court. This Court, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 01.06.2004, vacated the stay order dated 21.05.1993 passed in Writ petition no.2823 of 1993 and permitted the petitioner to apply for execution of the award. Thereafter, the respondent department reinstated the petitioner in service, where he continued till his retirement. His services were regularized on 31.05.2012. The grievance of the petitioner is that his services ought to have been regularized w.e.f. 01.10.1986 and he is also entitled for regular pension as per Old Pension Scheme and other service benefits. It is contended that as per Rule 4 of U.P. Irrigation Department Regularization of Part-Time Tube -Well Operators on the post of Tube-Well Operator Rules, 1996, petitioner was entitled to be regularized in service w.e.f. 01.10.1986. According to him, similarly situated persons and several junior employees have been regularized but the petitioner could not be regularized w.e.f. 01.10.1986.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file.