SHAKTI PRASAD BHATT ETC. ETC. versus THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 272 · Decided: 26-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
272
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
SHAKTI PRASAD BHATT ETC. ETC.
v.
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4519-4530 of 2018)
APRIL 26, 2018
[ARUN MISHRA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Service Law – Claim to count past services for the purpose of
selection grade, promotional scale and post retiral benefits including
pension – Post of Kurk Amins – It was held by High Court of
Allahabad on 16.11.1985 in a case that Kurk Amins were government
servants holding civil posts and were entitled to be treated in the
same way as others in the services of Government of U.P. – This
view was confirmed in another judgment of High Court wherein it
was held that Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis stood on
the same footing as Kurk Amins appointed on regular basis – The
said order was upheld by Supreme court in Chandra Prakash case
– Thus,  Kurk Amins’ status was confirmed by Supreme Court with
effect from 1985 as that of the government servant – With effect
from 9.11.2000, the erstwhile State of U.P. was bifurcated and U.P.
Re-Organisation Act carved out the State of Uttarakhand – Many
Kurk Amins including appellants were allocated to the State of
Uttarakhand and were absorbed in the Government service of
Uttarakhand – The benefit of the judgment rendered by Supreme
Court as well as by the High Court of Allahabad was clearly
available to the Kurk Amins whose services had been allocated to
the State of Uttarakhand and their past service could not have been
wiped off for the purposes of grant of selection grade, promotion
scale, post retiral benefits including pension etc. as was done by
the High Court – The impugned judgment whereby the claim of
appellant was denied was not in accordance with law and was
against the basic principles of service jurisprudence as merely by
the act of bifurcation of the State the incumbents would not lose
their services for the purpose of pension and other benefits – The
appellants are held entitled to all such relief – Cost of Rs.1 lac
imposed on State of Uttarakhand – U.P. Reorganization Act – Costs.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is apparent that the Kurk Amins’ status was
confirmed by this Court with effect from 1985 as that of the
[2018] 4 S.C.R. 272
272
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
273
government servant.  The erstwhile State of U.P. was bifurcated
and U.P. Re-Organisation Act carved the State of Uttarakhand
out with effect from 9.11.2000.  Many Kurk Amins including
appellants were allocated to the State of Uttarakhand and were
absorbed in the Government service of Uttarakhand.  As
uncertainty prevailed, Kurk Amins filed writ application before
the High Court of Uttarakhand to seek relief with effect from
16.11.1985. Their case was that they should be governed by the
decision rendered by this Court earlier in the matter.  Single
Bench of Uttarakhand High Court allowed the writ petition vide
order dated 31.8.2006; against which writ appeal was filed by the
State of Uttarakhand was decided by the Division Bench on
14.9.2010.[Paras 13, 14][277-H; 278-A-C]
2. The Division Bench of the High Court had clearly opined
that the benefit of Chandra Prakash Pandey’s case should not be
denied to the appellants as they sail on the same boat.  However,
in para 7 it was observed by the Division Bench that they would
be entitled to the consequential benefits with effect from 9th
November 2000 and not with effect from 16th November 1985.
That would not have meant that their earlier services were to be
wiped off; it was only with respect to monetary liability not to be
saddled upon the State of Uttarakhand with respect to the period
1985 till the appointed date i.e. 9.11.2000. [Paras 15, 16][279-B-
D]
3. Once State has been reorganised, the past service of
Kurk Amins could not have been wiped off and the benefit of the
judgment rendered by this Court as well as by the High Court of
Allahabad was clearly available to the said Kurk Amins whose
services had been allocated to the State of Uttarakhand.  The
services rendered in the State of U.P. could not have been wiped
off for the purposes of grant of selection grade, promotion scale,
post retiral benefits including pension etc. as has been done by
the High Court. The judgment is not in accordance with law and
just benefit has been taken away for no good reason and is against
the basic principles of service jurisprudence and merely by the
act of bifurcation of the State the incumbents were not supposed
to lose their services for

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.