State Can't Take Benefit Of Its Own Wrong By Denying Pensionary Benefits To Employee, Who Served For Three Decades: Uttarakhand High Court

A division bench of the Uttarakhand High Court comprising of Hon'ble Chief Justice Ms. Ritu Bahri and Hon'ble Justice Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, while deciding a Special Appeal in the case of State of Uttarakhand & Ors vs Prakash Chandra Harbola & Ors has held that the State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong by denying the pensionary benefits to the employee, who rendered continuous service for almost three decades. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to take such steps.Background Facts The petitioner (Respondent) was appointed on the post of Clerk in the Municipality Dwarahat, District Almora in 1982. Due to non creation of the post of Clerk, the services of the petitioner came to an end after a period of time. The petitioner approached the authorities for his reinstatement into the services, and subsequently, by government order, directions were issued to appoint the petitioner on the newly created post of Clerk. In compliance thereof, the District Magistrate, Chamoli appointed the petitioner on the post of Clerk in Notified Area Committee, Karnprayag on regular and substantive basis. Later the State Government appointed the petitioner as secretary due to transfer of previous secretary. By virtue of an Amendment Act of 1994, in the Municipality Act, the nomenclature of the post of Secretary was changed to 'Executive Officer'. In the year 2000, the petitioner was allocated to the State of Uttarakhand as an Executive Officer after the state was bifurcated. In the year 2006, the respondent no. 1 passed a transfer order and reverted the petitioner to the original post of clerk. Being aggrieved with the same, petitioner preferred a writ petition, which was allowed and the order of respondent no. 1 was quashed and direction was issued to reinstate the petitioner as Executive Officer with all consequential benefits.The petitioner preferred another writ petition, when no retiral dues were paid to him after retirement, wherein, the respondents were directed to grant pension and gratuity from the date of retirement, with interest, including the entire arrears of pension. Also the respondents were directed to decide the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order, but the petitioner's representation was rejected by the respondents. Being aggrieved of the same, another writ petition was preferred by the petitioner. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition after taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter, including Rule 31 of U.P. Town Area and Notified Area Committees (Centralised) Services Rules, 1976 (1976 Rules), and held that denial of the service benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. the date of initial ad hoc appointment as Secretary, was not based on any logic, so petitioner should be provided all pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the State (Appellant) filed the aforesaid special appeal, challenging the impugned orders passed by learned Single Judge.Findings of the CourtThe court observed that there was no illegality and infirmity in the judgement rendered by the learned Single Judge. The court relied on the case of State of Gujrat and others Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, wherein the Supreme Court held that the State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong as denying pensionary benefits to the employee, who had rendered almost 30 years of continuous service, is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to take such steps.The court further observed that the aforesaid Appeal had been preferred by the State without any substance and without going through the record. So the court held that filing of such an appeal was totally an abuse of process of law, therefore, imposed a cost of Rs.50,000/- upon the State Government to be paid to the respondent within a period of one month. With the aforesaid observations, the special appeal was dismissed.Case No. : Special Appeal No. 153 of 2022Case Name: State of Uttarakhand & Ors vs Prakash Chandra Harbola & OrsCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Utt) 5Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Addl. C.S.C.Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned CounselClick Here To Read/Download Order

State Can't Take Benefit Of Its Own Wrong By Denying Pensionary Benefits To Employee, Who Served For Three Decades: Uttarakhand High Court

Namdev Singh

Tags