Disposed

Ashok Kumar v. State Of Uttarakhand Through Secretary Department Of Silk and Others

Uttarakhand HC14 May 2019WPSS/434/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners working as Keetpalaks in the Sericulture Department sought the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme. The coordinate bench had addressed a similar issue for Horticulture Department employees. The court directed the competent authority to decide on fresh representations within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to make fresh representations, which the competent authority must examine and decide within eight weeks.

Ashok Kumar Vs State Of Uttarakhand Through… — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

WPSS No. 434 of 2018 With WPSS No. 435 of 2018 With WPSS No. 439 of 2018 With WPSS no. 442 of 2018 Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶2

Mr. R.K. Sah, Advocate for the

¶3

petitioner.

¶4

Mr. Susheel Vasistha, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶5

Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and are being heard & decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, facts of WPSS No. 434 of 2018 are being considered.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners in these writ petitions are working on Group ‘D’ post of Keetpalak in Sericulture Department of the State Government, since last more than 36 years. They are claiming benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, according to which, certain benefits are to be given to every State employee upon completion of 10 years, 16 years and 26 years of satisfactory service.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Sericulture is part of Horticulture Department and Sericulture and Horticulture departments have a common Directorate. He further submits that coordinate Bench of this Court has decided similar controversy in respect of Group ‘D’ employees i.e. Malies serving in Horticulture Department, vide judgment dated 11.01.2019 passed in WPSS No. 136 of 2019 & other connected petitions.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have made representation to the Competent Authority, however, no decision has been taken on their representation(s) so far.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners confines his prayer and submits that Competent Authority may be directed to take a decision on petitioners’ representation(s). Prayer made is innocuous, therefore, is worth accepting.

¶10

Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make fresh representation(s) to respondent No. 2, within a period of two weeks from today. If such representation(s) is made, respondent No. 2 shall examine the same and take decision in the matter, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of such representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶11

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) NEHA 14.05.2019

Ashok Kumar v. State Of Uttarakhand Through Secretary Department Of Silk and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar v. State Of Uttarakhand Through Secretary Department Of Silk and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilbag Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pankaj Kumar Pandey Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajesh Kumar and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Ganga Singh Panda Vs Union Of India and Others

Saraswati Rana Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rashmi Vs State of Uttarakhand