Dismissed

Ram Pratap Singh v. G.B. Pant Agriculture and Technology University Pant Nagar through Its Vice- Chancellor

Uttarakhand HC3 Aug 2022WPSS/526/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge disposed of this writ petition by holding that the matters were already finally settled by a Division Bench judgment confirmed by the Apex Court, directing respondents to comply with prior directions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to ensure compliance with prior Division Bench judgment within six weeks.

Ram Pratap Singh Vs G.B. Pant Agriculture and… — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 526 of 2017

¶3

Ram Pratap Singh … Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

G.B. Pant Agriculture and Technology University Pant Nagar through its Vice Chancellor, U.S. Nagar and others … Respondents

¶6

Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶7

Ms. Soniya Chawla, Advocate, for the respondents

¶8

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

¶9

The petitioner to the present writ petition had prayed

¶10

for the following reliefs:-

¶11

“I. Issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 17-12-2016 passed by respondent no. 4 by which the service of the petitioner has been transfer to contractor which is contain in the Annexure no. 8 to the writ petition and other subsequent orders in continuation of the impugned order dated 17/12/2016.

¶12

II. Issue writ order or direction in the nature mandamus directing the respondents not interfere the present working status of the petitioner on the post of D.P.A.(Data Processing Assistant) and pay the regular salary of the post to the petitioner.

¶13

III. Issue writ order or direction in the nature mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in regularization rules on the post of D.P.A.(Data Processing Assistant).

¶14

IV. Issue any other suitable writ order or direction as the Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶15

V. Award the costs of the petition to the Petitioner.”

¶16

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner contends that he was initially appointed as a Data Processing Assistant/ Lab Assistant; with the respondents/ University as a consequence of the process of selection, which was resorted to by the respondents/University as per law, and since having worked in the said capacity for over more than three years, the petitioner’s services were thereafter attempted to be transferred to the contractors though on the same post. Challenging the said action of the respondents/ University of

¶17

¶18

transferring the services of the petitioner; as a contractual service, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶19

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the issue in question was earlier being a subject matter of consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 300 of 2018, whereby, the Division Bench of this Court has allowed the Special Appeal, and the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 4th April 2018, denying the relief to the petitioner for regularizing their services, after their initial induction on a contractual basis, was set aside. The judgement of the Division Bench was later on sought to be reviewed by filing a Review Application No. 1655 of 2018, which too was dismissed by the subsequent judgment of the Division Bench of this Court on 4th September 2020.

¶20

4. As against the aforesaid two judgments, the matter was carried before the Hon’ble Apex Court; at the behest of the respondents/University by preferring a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Number 26666 of 2020. The Hon’ble Apex Court, vide its judgement dated 23rd August 2021, had dismissed Special Leave Petition, preferred by the respondents/University and consequently, it had affirmed the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court as already referred to above.

¶21

5. In that eventuality, once the judgement of the Division Bench dated 21st August 2018, has attained finality, and thus claim raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition would

¶22

¶23

stand squarely covered by the judgement of the Division Bench dated 21st August 2018, as confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court which is a fact not denied by the respondents’ counsel.

¶24

6. In that eventuality, since it is a fact, which is not denied, and could also be borne out from the records of the rejoinder affidavit, filed by the petitioner, this writ petition too would stand disposed of in terms of the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court dated 21st August 2018. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to ensure the compliance of the directions, which was given herewith based on the judgement of the Division Bench dated 21st August 2018 and extend the similar benefits to the petitioner too, with six weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶25

7. Subject to the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed

¶26

¶27

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 03.08.2022

¶28

Mahinder/

Ram Pratap Singh v. G.B. Pant Agriculture and Technology University Pant Nagar through Its Vice- Chancellor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pratap Singh v. G.B. Pant Agriculture and Technology University Pant Nagar through Its Vice- Chancellor

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

Hamendra Singh Rauthan Vs State of Uttarakhand Thorugh Secretary

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Secretary, Irrigation Department

Vikas Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand Thorugh Secretary

Anand Singh Rawat Vs State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies

Mohan Singh Vs Union of India through Its Secretary, Home Affairs

Smt. Anusuya Devi Vs Union of India through Its Secretary, Home Affairs