Dismissed

Anju Bala v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC6 Sept 2021WPSB/295/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a grievance of an ad-hoc Medical Officer whose regularization claim was ignored due to lack of Central Government allocation. Holding that no allocation is required under Section 73 of U.P. Reorganization Act, the Court ordered the authority to consider the regularization claim within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Secretary, Medical Department, State of U.P. to consider the petitioner's claim for regularization under Uttarakhand Regularization Rules, 2002, within four weeks.

SL. No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
	0 6 .0 9 .2 0 2 1		WPSB No. 295 of 2020 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Hon’ble Alok Ku m ar Ver m a, J. Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Hemant Pant, learned Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Gopal K. Verma, learned Advocate for respondent nos.5 & 6. Miscellaneous Application Nos. 01 of 2021 and 02 of 2021 are allowed. Counter affidavits are taken on record. Miscellaneous Application No.03 of 2021 is allowed. Rejoinder affidavit is taken on record. Petitioner was given ad-hoc appointment on the post of Medical Officer (Community Health) by Secretary, Medical Department, State of U.P. in the year 1988. Grievance of the petitioner is that although she is continuously serving for last more than 33 years, but her claim for regularization under Uttarakhand Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002, is not being considered. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that earlier, petitioner’s claim for regularization was not being considered on the ground that she has not been finally allocated by the Central Government under Section 73 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000. He has drawn attention to a communication issued by Central Government dated 13.08.2018, which is annexed as annexure 16 to the writ petition.

SL.
No

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

0 6 .0 9 .2 0 2 1

WPSB No. 295 of 2020
Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.
Hon’ble Alok Ku m ar Ver m a, J.
Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Hemant Pant,
learned Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Bisht, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Gopal K. Verma, learned Advocate
for respondent nos.5 & 6.
Miscellaneous Application Nos. 01 of
2021 and 02 of 2021 are allowed. Counter
affidavits are taken on record.
Miscellaneous
Application
No.03
of
2021 is allowed. Rejoinder affidavit is taken
on record.
Petitioner
was
given
ad-hoc
appointment on the post of Medical Officer
(Community Health) by Secretary, Medical
Department, State of U.P. in the year 1988.
Grievance of the petitioner is that although
she is continuously serving for last more
than
33
years,
but
her
claim
for
regularization
under
Uttarakhand
Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (on
posts within the purview of the Public
Service Commission) Rules, 2002, is not
being considered.
Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner submits that
earlier, petitioner’s claim for regularization
was not being considered on the ground
that she has not been finally allocated by
the Central Government under Section 73 of
U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000. He has
drawn attention to a communication issued
by Central Government dated 13.08.2018,
which is annexed as annexure 16 to the writ
petition.

Perusal of the said communication
leaves no room for doubt that Central Government does not allocate ad-hoc employees under Section 73 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2002. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner further submits that all other similarly situate person, who were appointed on_ad-hoc_basis as Medical Officer, Community Health were regularized w.e.f. from 27.01.2006. In view of the clarification given by the
Central Government in its communication dated 13.08.2018, the inaction on the part of the competent authority to consider petitioner’s claim for regularization appears to be unjust & improper. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to consider petitioner’s claim for regularization on the post of Medical Officer (Community Health) in terms of 2002 Rules, as early as possible but not later than four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Mr. Anil Bisht, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel is directed to
communicate this order to Secretary AYUSH, respondent no.1, within 24 hrs.
( Alok Ku m ar Ver m a, J.) ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 0 6 .0 9 .2 0 2 1 0 6 .0 9 .2 0 2 1 Pant/ Neha

Perusal of the said communication

leaves no room for doubt that Central
Government
does
not
allocate
ad-hoc
employees under Section 73 of the U.P.
Reorganization Act, 2002. Learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner further submits
that all other similarly situate person, who
were appointed on_ad-hoc_basis as Medical
Officer, Community Health were regularized
w.e.f. from 27.01.2006.
In view of the clarification given by the

Central Government in its communication
dated 13.08.2018, the inaction on the part
of the competent authority to consider
petitioner’s claim for regularization appears
to be unjust & improper.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed
of with a direction to respondent no.1 to
consider petitioner’s claim for regularization
on the post of Medical Officer (Community
Health) in terms of 2002 Rules, as early as
possible but not later than four weeks from
the date of production of certified copy of
this order.
Mr. Anil Bisht, learned Additional Chief

Standing
Counsel
is
directed
to

communicate
this
order
to
Secretary
AYUSH, respondent no.1, within 24 hrs.

( Alok Ku m ar Ver m a, J.) ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.)
0 6 .0 9 .2 0 2 1 0 6 .0 9 .2 0 2 1
Pant/ Neha

Anju Bala v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju Bala v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Chandra Pant Vs State of Uttarakhand

Prerna Panwar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chandra Singh Rautela Vs State of Uttarakhand

Nasheema Bano Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shashti Ballabh Pandey Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vinod Kumar Chauhan Vs State of Uttarakhand