ASHUTOSH JOSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. -
(1.) THE petitioners before this Court are lecturers in various Government Intermediate Colleges in the State. The common factor in case
of all the petitioners is that they were applicants in the recruitment
process which was initiated by the Government vide advertisement dated
5.10.2003 which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition, whereby the State Public Service Commission had advertised various vacancies for the
different posts in different intermediate colleges in the State. Total
vacancies for men were 1120 and for women were 99. The present
petitioners applied for said posts in which they appeared in written
examination which was held on 26.9.2004. Thereafter the viva voce of
women candidate was conducted between 7.7.2005 to 15.7.2005 and viva voce
of men candidate was conducted between 22.8.2005 to 10.3.2006. Thereafter
the result of women candidates was published between 27.7.2005 and
23.8.2005. Regarding men candidates result was published, subject -wise, between 24.9.2005 to 15.9.2006. Subsequent to the publication of the
result, the petitioners were given appointment letter and now they are
teaching in different colleges of the State. All of them are presently
aggrieved by the Government Order dated 25.10.2005 according to which
pensionary benefits are only liable to be given to such government
employees who were inducted in service on or before 30.9.2005. Meaning
thereby, those who were inducted in service after 30.9.2005, will not be
given pensionable benefits.
(2.) LEARNED Standing Counsel for the State has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 30.1.2009 which is Annexure CA 1 to the
counter affidavit filed by the State, whereby the Uttarakhand Retirement
Benefits (Amendment) Rules, 2009 have been published which have a
retrospective application from 1.10.2005 and which clearly stipulate that
pensionable benefit will not be given to those employees who have been
inducted in service from 1.10.2005 onwards.
(3.) THE contention of the petitioners, on the other hand, is that in the advertisement dated 5.10.2003, it has been clearly stated that all
the posts for which the selection is to take place are pensionable posts.
This fact has been admitted by the learned Standing Counsel. Moreover, it
has been further argued that once the selection process had started and
it was clearly stipulated in the advertisement that the posts which were
advertised by the Commissioner were pensionable post, this condition
could not have been changed to the detriment of the selected candidates.
Another anomaly which has been pointed out before this Court by the petitioners is that though the selection process started as far
back as on 5.10.2003 and a batch of 99 women candidates were selected and
given appointment prior to 1.10.2005 in the same selection process, for
reasons best known to the Commission and the State Government, the
selection of men candidates was delayed and they were effectively given
appointment letters only after 1.10.2005. The anomaly as pointed out now
would be that whereas the women candidates who have been selected and
appointed in same selection process will now be entitled for pensionary
benefits whereas the present petitioners will not be liable for
pensionary benefits. This is a wholly unreasonable classification, the
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.