BALBIR SINGH KUNWAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Balbir Singh Kunwar
State of Uttarakhand and others
Click here to view full judgement.
Tarun Agarwala, J. -
(1.) The petitioner is working in the Irrigation Deptt. in Tehri since 1968 in a work charge establishment. On 7th February, 1981, the erstwhile State of U.P. issued a Government Order indicating therein that work charge employees who have worked for three years or more should be regularized. Based on the said Government Order, the petitioner submitted a series of representations with regard to the regularization of his services on the post of Driller. These representations fell on deaf ears and, consequently, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Lucknow being Adjudication Case No. 72 of 1993. The terms of the reference order was;
"Whether the workers as mentioned in the schedule were entitled to be regularized on the post shown in the schedule."
(2.) The Labour Court gave an award directing that the employers were not justified in not regularizing the services of the petitioner and, consequently, directed the State Govt. to take steps to regularize the services of the petitioner on the basis of seniority.
(3.) Based on the said award, the respondents implemented the said award and issued an order dated 21st May, 1998 regularizing the services of the petitioner on the post of Mate in the pay scale of 775-1040. The petitioner was not happy with this regularization as he had always contended that he is entitled to be regularized on the post of Driller, Grade-1 which was in the pay scale of INR 950-1500. Thereafter, the petitioner made a fresh representation to the authority to rectify the defect in the regularization order which representation fell on deaf ears and, accordingly, the petitioner filed a fresh writ petition before the Allahabad High Court which was transferred to this Court upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 30th March, 2006 directing the authority to decide the representation. The said representation was rejected by an order dated 19.04.2007 when contempt proceedings were initiated against the authority in which the respondents submitted that the matter has been referred to the State Govt. for appropriate orders. The petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the respondents has filed the present writ petition.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.