Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. -
(1.) HEARD Mr. Sidhartha Singh, Advocate with Mr. Kuldeep Rawal, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate with Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5, Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 7, Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 6 and Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioners before this Court are all Class III employees with the Haridwar Judgeship. Some of them were initially appointed on Class IV posts and subsequently promoted to Class III posts. The remaining petitioners were appointed as Class III employees and continued to exist as such. They have challenged the placement of private respondents, who are also Class III employees in Haridwar Judgeship, above them on the ground that the private respondents were not initially appointed in Haridwar Judgeship, but their initial appointments were made in other different judgeships in Uttarakhand, such as, Bageshwar, Nainital & Dehradun, and they were subsequently transferred to Haridwar Judgeship by orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this High Court. The transfer orders of each of private respondents have been perused. These transfer orders pertain to different dates in the year 2007 and 2008, but the common factor in all of them is that they have been transferred to Haridwar Judgeship, and although specifically mentioned only in a few case, yet it is also an admitted case that in all cases the respondents were transferred to Haridwar on their own request. A specific question in this regard was asked to Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, who on his instructions has replied that each of the transfer was made on the personal request, except that of Respondent No. 7 who was transferred on a mutual request. However, even in that case, the Court is of the view that this too would fall in the category of a personal request. In short, all such transfers which are presently in dispute were made on personal requests of the private respondents.
(2.) IT may also be stated here at the very outset that Class III and Class IV cadre is a district level cadre, pertaining to that particular Judgeship alone, and transfers from outside district are rare and done mostly on a complaint or in public interest. All the same, consequent to their transfer to Haridwar Judgeship, a seniority list belonging to cadre of Class III employees were prepared in which the petitioners found that the names of the private respondents were shown as senior to the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners made a representation to the District Judge, Haridwar, which was rejected. Consequently, they moved a statutory appeal before the High Court. Before the High Court, the contention of the petitioners, inter alia, was that after the notification dated 24.04.2007, the Uttarakhand Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) came into force. It has been specifically given under Rule 3 of the Rules that the feeding cadre for promotion to the post of Suits Clerk/Execution Clerks, Ahalmads, Accounts Clerk, Sessions Clerk, Appeals Clerk, Cashier, Misc. Clerk, Munsarim etc. shall be from amongst the Copyist/Junior Clerk/Assistant Accounts Clerk etc. The contention of the petitioners is that the private respondents who came from other Judgeship have been placed above the petitioners. Moreover, their contention always remained that the private respondents, if at all have to be treated as members of Haridwar Judgeship, they should be placed at the bottom of the cadre and their transfer to Haridwar judgeship should not adversely affect their service condition. However, in the present case, due to the placement of private respondents, the service condition of the petitioners have been affected. Nevertheless the statutory appeal of the present petitioners was also rejected vide order dated 06.05.2011. The order reads as under: - -
Considered the representation.
The Notification No. 161, D/ - 24.04.2007 is of no help to the representationists as after Smt. Vidyavati Verma, Sri Nitin Agarwal and Sri Pawan Kumar Sharma are absorbed in Hardwar Judgeship, they cannot be treated outsiders. The representation is rejected.
They are now before this Court in the present writ petition.
(3.) THE service conditions of the subordinate civil courts ministerial staff are governed by the Rules known as the Uttarakhand Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 2007. "Ministerial establishment" has been defined in the definition clause of Section 2(i) of the Rules, which reads as follows: - -
2(i) "Ministerial Establishment" means the staff of the subordinate Civil Courts and Family Courts consisting of ministerial servants.;