Allowed

Vijay Bhatt v. Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. and Others

Uttarakhand HC2 Dec 2014WPSS/972/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court restrained the respondent company from showing employees originally appointed in a different cadre as senior to the petitioner within the petitioner's original cadre. It observed that discharge of duties in another cadre does not alter an employee's rights or seniority in their original cadre of appointment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 26.06.2010 passed by the Board of Directors was set aside.

Vijay Bhatt Vs Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd… — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 972 of 2010

¶2

Vijay Bhatt … Petitioner Versus Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. & others … Respondents

¶3

Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate, present for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate, present for respondent Nos. 5 to 8.

¶4

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral)

¶5

Restoration Application No. 890 of 2014

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant on the restoration application.

¶7

The restoration application is allowed. The order dated 29.10.2014 by which the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution is hereby recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number.

¶8

WPSS No. 972 of 2010

¶9

The petitioner is an employee of Government Company known as “Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited”. He was appointed on compassionate grounds in the year 1994 by order dated 08.07.1994 as a Catering in-charge in the Tourism cadre. Thereafter vide order dated 20.03.2002, after seven years of satisfactory service, he was given a time scale. This again was done, when the petitioner was working as Catering in-charge in the Tourism cadre.

¶10

In the year 2008, the petitioner moved a representation to the Board of Director of the Company, which was communicated by the Managing Director of the Company stating therein that the private respondent Nos. 5 to 8, who are being represented by Mr. B.S. Negi – Advocate before this Court, were originally appointed in the Ministerial cadre, but

¶11

¶12

they have been wrongly shown to be working as employees of Tourism cadre in the Company and have been shown senior to the petitioner. On the representation of the petitioner, the Managing Director passed an order dated 24.05.2008 stating that the initial appointment of the private respondents was on the Ministerial cadre, and they should not be shown in the inter se seniority list of employees in the Tourism cadre, as this would amount to a change of their cadre.

¶13

The application of the petitioner was allowed to the effect that he was kept in the Tourism cadre whereas private respondents were shown as members of the Ministerial cadre. Against the said order the private respondents moved a representation before the Board of Directors, which has been communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 26.06.2010 by the order of the Company Secretary. Now the previous order again recalled and the complete summersault has been done by the Directors who have ordered that the seniority of private respondents would be seen in the Tourism cadre only and not in the Ministerial cadre.

¶14

According to the petitioner this is not only arbitrary and illegal but it was also passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further argue that since the initial appointment of the petitioner was in the Tourism cadre and he has always been shown in Tourism cadre though he is discharging his duty in the Ministerial cadre which is permissible, yet his lien, particularly his seniority, will remain in his original cadre i.e. Tourism cadre.

¶15

On the other hand the case of the private respondents is that though the private respondents were

¶16

¶17

initially appointed in the Ministerial cadre but practically they are discharging their duties in the Tourism cadre, therefore, they have rightly been shown in the Tourism cadre.

¶18

Learned counsel for the company says that although since the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds in the Tourism cadre but since a vacancy was available in the Ministerial cadre, therefore, he was discharging his duty in Ministerial cadre. Therefore, he has been rightly shown to be a member of Ministerial cadre.

¶19

This argument of the company is not liable to be accepted for the following reasons.

¶20

Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the Tourism cadre, merely he has been discharging his duty in the Ministerial cadre or any other cadre would not take away his rights which will always remains in the Tourism cadre. His seniority will be calculated qua members of the Tourism cadre alone. The private respondents may be actually senior to him, but they are members of a different cadre, therefore, they cannot be shown to be senior to the petitioner in the Tourism cadre for the simple reason that they are members of the Ministerial cadre.

¶21

This being the situation, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.06.2010 passed by the Board of Directors is hereby set aside.

¶22

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)

¶23

02.12.2014

¶24

Ankit

Vijay Bhatt v. Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Bhatt v. Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avtar Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Harish Chandra Saklani Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Jasod Singh and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Guru Prasad Ranakoti Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Roop Singh Khatri Vs Chief Engineer Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. and Others

Smt Aradhana Rawat Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others