STATE OF UTTARANCHAL versus ALOK SHARMA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 15-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 7 S.C.R. 1 
j 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL 
A 
V. 
ALOK SHARMA & ORS. 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2444-2445 of 2009 
APRIL 15, 2009 
B 
(S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.) 
1 
Service Law: 
Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of 
Public Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991: 
c 
Rule 2(c), 3(1) - Retrenched employees -Absorption of 
- Circular issued by the State Government - Subsequent 
circular issued in continuation of the earlier one which provided 
for a cut-off date - Both the Circulars to be read together- If 
the respondents were kept outside the purview of the said D 
circulars, indisputably they cannot be said to have derived 
any legal right so as to enable them to pray for issuance of a 
writ of mandamus - Impugned judgments set aside - Any 
amount paid to the respondents not to be recovered - U.P 
Reorganisation Act, 2000, Section 2(g) - Constitution of India, 
E 
1950, Articles 12, 14, 142. 
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) and 
~~ 
Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 - followed. 
Post Master General, Kolkata & Ors. Vs. Tutu Das (Dutta) 
F 
(2007) 5 SCC 317; State of Punjab vs. Bahadur Singh & Ors. 
2009 (1) SCALE 316; Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand & Ors. 
(2008) 10 SCC 1 ; State of Bihar vs. Upendra Narayan Singh 
& Ors. 2009 (4) SCALE 282; Punjab State Warehousing 
Corpn., Chandigarh vs. Manmohan Singh & Anr. (2007) 9 
G 
SCC 337; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Sajal Kumar 
Roy (2006) 8 SCC 671; State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. R. 
Vivekananda Swamy (2008) 5 SCC 328 and Punjab State 
Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Gurmail Singh (2008) 7 SCC 245 
- relied on. 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
'\ 
2444-2445 of 2009 
From the Judgement and Order dated 20.09.2005 of the 
Hon'ble Hight Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital is Special Appeal 
No. 56 and 57 of 2005 
- B 
WITH 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2453 of 2009 
~-
Civil Appeal Nos. 2463 of 2009 
c 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2465 of 2009 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2455 of 2009 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2457 of 2009 
D 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2459 of 2009 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2461 of 2009 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2448 of 2009 
E 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2463 of 2009 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2451 of 2009 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2466 of 2009 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2450 of 2009 
F 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2468 of 2009 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2470 of 2009 
Pinky Anand, M.N. Rao, Ratnakar Dash, Abhay Prakash 
G 
Sahay, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Rac;;hana Srivastava, Nurullah, 
Promila, Deba Prasad Mukherjee, Fuzail Khan, Anuvrat Sharma, 
Nikilesh Ramachandran, Shirish Kumar Mishra, with them for 
the Appearing Parties. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
H 
STATE OF UTIARANCHAL V. ALOK SHARMA & ORS. 
3 
" 
S.B. SINHA, J. 
A 
1. Leave granted. 
2. Interpretation and/ or application of various circular 
letters issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh which have been 
adopted by the State of Uttarakhand after it was formed in terms B 
of the U.P. State Reorganisation Act is in question in these 
1 
appeals. 
3. Two government companies being M/s. Teletronix Ltd. 
and Kumaon Television Ltd. were the subsidiary companies of 
Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. The employees of the said c 
government companies were retrenched. The State of Uttar 
Pradesh took a policy decision to appoint the employees of the 
said government companies. For the said purpose, it framed 
rules purported to be in exercise of its power under the proviso 
appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, known as D 
the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of 
Government of Public Corporations in Government Services 
Rules, 1991 (for short "the Rules"). 
4. The term "retrenched employee" is defined in Rule 2(c) 
E 
of the Rules as under: 
"(c) "retrenched employee" means a person who was 
-j· 
appointed on a post under the Government or a public 
corporation on or before October 1, 1986 in accordance 
with the procedure laid down for recruitment to the post 
F 
and was continuously working in any post under the 
Government or such corporation upto the date of his 
retrenchment due to reduction in, or winding up of, any 
establishment of the Government or the public corporation, 
as the case may be and in respect of whom a certificate G 
of being a retrenched employee has been issued by his 
appointing authority." 
I 
The charging provision is contained in Rule 3(1) of the · 
Rules, which reads as under: 
H 
4 
A 
8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
"3(1) Notwith
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.