This court dismissed three special appeals challenging the Single Judge's order regarding petitioners' claims for absorption posts at the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation based on 1995 assurances. Citing prior Division Bench dismissal, the court held no merit remained.
All special appeals were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 31 of 2022
Purna Bahadur and others. .......….......Appellants. -VersusUttarakhand Forest Development Corporation and others. ……...Respondents.
Present:
Shri Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents - Corporation.
With Special Appeal No. 32 of 2022 Satish Kumar Chauhan and others. .......….......Appellants. -VersusUttarakhand Forest Development Corporation and others. ……...Respondents. Present: Shri Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents - Corporation. And Special Appeal No. 34 of 2022 Vikram Singh and others. .......….......Appellants. -VersusUttarakhand Forest Development Corporation and others. ……...Respondents. Present: Shri Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents - Corporation.
2
Date of hearing and order: 02.03.2022
Coram: Sri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, ACJ. Sri Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court made following order (Per Sri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, ACJ)
1. Common questions of facts and law are involved in all the three special appeals, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all the three special appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. In these three intra court appeals, the petitioners – appellants herein have assailed the common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (SS) Nos. 1429, 1430 and 1431 of 2021 dated 12.11.2021.
3. Petitioners were appointed with the respondent Corporation. They discharged their duties till the date of their retrenchment i.e. 26.06.1995. The petitioners had preferred a Writ Petition (SS) No. 2111 of 2015 (Satish Kumar Chauhan and others Vs. Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation and others), which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 07.10.2015. The operative portion of the aforesaid order is quoted below:
“6. In view thereof, let the petitioners move their representation to the respondent no. 3 Regional Manager 2 (Tehri Area), Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, which shall be decided as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.”
4. The respondent Corporation proceeded to consider the claim of the petitioners. Ultimately on considering their claim, the
3
respondent Corporation rejected the representation of the petitioners by order no. 2818 dated 20.11.2015. After rejection of the representation, the claim was again put to challenge by the petitioners in subsequent Writ Petition (SS) No. 414 of 2016 (Satish Kumar Chauhan & others Vs. State of Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation and others). The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 01.10.2016 and their claim on the basis of assurance given to them in the year 1995 for absorption, was denied to be considered. The matter was again carried out in Special Appeal No. 319 of 2016 (Satish Kumar Chauhan and others Vs. Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation and others) before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court by the judgment and order dated 16.11.2016 had dismissed the special appeal. The judgment dated 16.11.2016 was not put challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, it attained finality. It is appropriate to take note of the relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Special Appeal. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the aforesaid judgment read as under:
“6. We notice that this is the stand, which is also substantially reiterated before us by the learned counsel for the respondents. Denial of Paragraph - 9 of the counter affidavit is contained in Paragraph - 6 of the rejoinder affidavit, which reads as follows:
6. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 9, 10, 11 of the counter affidavit it is submitted that since the respondents stated in para under reply that they gave appointment on the post of Guards. The respondents gave the name of the post of chowkidar and scalar as guard. Since the respondents stated in order
4
dated 20-11-2015 that there are 768 post of scalar, but 1289 workers are working and there are 229 post of Chowkidar/Mali/Postman/Peon/Orderly, but 1090 workers are working, therefore, the matter should be referred to the state agency to conduct an inquiry in the matter.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants would, no doubt, try to draw support from the order passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Forest Corporation in the year 2014. The stand of the respondents is that the same is not binding. By the said order, it appears that similarly situated persons have been taken back by the U.P. Forest Corporation, but here, we are dealing with the cause of action as against the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, which is the respondent. Their stand is set out as stated hereinbefore and their stand appears to be that in the posts, for which the appellants can claim any right on the basis of the terms of the notice, no appointments have been made, appointments instead have been made in respect of other categories.
5. Thereafter, the writ petitions had been filed before this Court. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions observed that after a lapse of 26 years, the respondent – Corporation is considering for appointment on certain posts and petitioners’ claim, as per alleged promise given to them, at the time of their retrenchment that they should be absorbed on that posts, cannot be considered.
6. This Court is of the opinion that since the matter has already reached quietus by virtue of disposal of intra court appeal by the Division Bench, nothing remains to be decided. Hence, there is no merit in these appeals. All the appeals are
5
dismissed. However, we do not disturb the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment .
7. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in each connected appeal.
8. Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, as per Rules.
SKS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether special appeals against the Single Judge's order dismissing petitions for absorption based on assurance given in 1995 merit consideration after the Division Bench has already dismissed the mat
Whether the Division Bench's prior dismissal of the matter precludes reconsideration on the grounds of retrenchment assurance given in 1995.
What is the disposition of intra-court appeals when the Division Bench has already dismissed the matter and it has not been challenged before the Supreme Court?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Purna Bahadur and others
Satish Kumar Chauhan and others
Vikram Singh and others
Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation
Sri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra
Sri Ramesh Chandra Khulbe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
