High Court · 2025

St at e has challenged t he said j udgm ent on t he ground t hat services of r espondent wer e not t erm inat ed orally, as alleged by her , but , she was sim ply t ransferred from Lalk uan Nursery of t he Forest Depart m ent t o Tanda Nursery .

7. Per cont ra, Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel t he respondent subm it s t hat husband of t he r espondent was appoint ed as a daily wager in Tarai Cent ral For est Division, Haldwani in t he year 1988 and he serv ed cont inuously as such t ill his deat h on

10.06.2010; upon deat h of her husband, respondent filed a writ pet it ion claim ing com passionat e appoint m ent , and due t o j udicial int ervent ion by t his Court , she was given appoint m ent , but as a daily wager. He subm it s t hat on account of filing of writ pet it ion, officer s of Forest Depart m ent got annoy ed and t hey m ade life of t he r espondent m iserable, and ult im at ely, her ser vices were orally t erm inat ed w.e.f. 01.11.2015. He subm it s t hat St at e has t o act as a m odel em ploy er, how ev er, t he m anner in which respondent was dealt wit h by t he aut horit ies was unbecom ing of t he role of t he St at e as a m odel em ployer. He furt her subm it s t hat learned Single Judge has given valid reasons for set t ing aside t he oral t erm inat ion order, t her efore, any int erference wit h t he im pugned j udgm ent would not be warrant ed.

8. We find subst ance t he subm ission m ade by lear ned counsel for t he r espondent . Respondent ’s husband render ed unblem ished service of 22 y ear s in t he For est Depart m ent . Report edly, per sons j unior t o her husband wer e r egularised service, how ever, respondent ’s husband was denied t hat benefit . Once, r espondent was offered appoint m ent on com passionat e ground, t hough as a daily wager, it was incum bent upon t he aut horit ies of t he Forest Depart m ent t o deal wit h her sym pat het ically having r egar d t o t he t ragedy t hat she suffered at a young age. I nst ead of adopt ing a sym pat het ic at t it ude, respondent was orally t erm inat ed from service. Thus, learned Single Judge was j ust ified int erfering wit h t he oral t erm inat ion order .

9. Mr. Narendra Bali, lear ned counsel for t he r espondent subm it s t hat m onet ary benefit s hav e been r eleased t o t he respondent in t erm s of t he im pugned j udgm ent .

10. For t he aforesaid reasons, int erference wit h t he im pugned j udgm ent would be unw arr ant ed. Thus, special appeal fails and is dism issed. We, how ever, set aside t he direct ion t o recover t he am ount from t he officer concer ned issued by t he im pugned j udgm ent . ( Su b h ash Up a d h y ay , J.) ( M a n o j K u m ar Ti w a r i , J.)

09.07.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f 487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A10381 9DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21C E5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA