High Court · 2025

2 . Ms. Anupriya Kukret i, Advocat e holding brief of Mr. M.C. Pant , Advocat e t he respondent s. 3 . This is Delay Condonat ion Applicat ion CLMA No.20146 of 2018 filed by t he St at e/ appellant for condoning t he delay of 384 days in filing t he appeal. 4 . I n view of r easons indicat ed, delay is condoned. Delay Condonat ion Applicat ion st ands allowed. 5 . This int ra- court appeal is filed by t he St at e challenging t he final or der dat ed

03.11.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No.2843 of 2017. Operat ive port ion of im pugned j udgm ent is reproduced below: - “ I t is, t herefore, t he prayer of learned counsel for t he pet it ioner t hat t hese pet it ions be decided in t erm s of aforesaid j udgm ent s. Learned Deput y Advocat e General fairly conceded t hat t he cont roversy in hand is covered by t he above not ed j udgm ent s. The above not ed writ pet it ions ar e accordingly disposed of in t erm s of t he aforesaid decisions.” 6 . The writ pet it ioners ( respondent s herein) wer e engaged in Work Char ge Est ablishm ent of I rrigat ion Depart m ent and t heir services wer e subsequent ly regularized. Many of t hem w er e ret ired before filing of t he w rit pet it ion. The writ pet it ion was filed by t he r espondent s, seeking t he following r eliefs: - “ ( i) I ssue writ , rule or direct ion in t he nat ure of m andam us declaring t he provisions of Art icle 370 of t he CSR Regulat ions so far as it provides for non- inclusion of services rendered in work- charged est ablishm ent including t he clause 8( ii) of definit ion clause 3 of U.P. Ret irem ent benefit rules, 1965 for t he purpose of qualifying service for pension as unconst it ut ional and against t he provisions of law and declare t he sam e as void and st ruck down t he sam e along wit h it s effect and operat ion also and direct ed t o t he St at e Governm ent t o delet e t he sam e from t he st at ut e book. ( ii) I ssue writ rule or direct ion in t he nat ure of m andam us direct ing t he respondent s t o t reat t he pet it ioner as perm anent and in regular service keeping in view of his cont inuous service against t he post s and perm anent work and t o qualify t hem as perm anent in view of t he provisions as highlight ed in t he body of t he pet it ion and allow t hem all benefit s of pension along wit h all consequent ial benefit s and int erest t hereon had it been t he provisions of CSR Regulat ions 370 was never in exist ence. ( iii) I ssue writ rule or direct ion in t he nat ure of m andam us t o award suit able com pensat ion of Rs.10.00 lacs t o each of t he pet it ioner for t he const it ut ional t ort of t he respondent s depriving t he pet it ioner from his legit im at e right in t erm s of Sect ion 73 of t he I ndian Cont ract Act .” 7 . Writ pet it ion was disposed of by learned Single Judge in t erm s of j udgm ent r ender ed by anot her Single Judge in WPSS No.1647 of

2016. St at e has com e up in appeal against t he said order. 8 . Since t he or der im pugned in t his appeal is a consent order and it has been passed based on a st at em ent given by lear ned Deput y General on behalf of t he St at e of Ut t arakhand, t her efore, t his Court is not inclined t o int erfer e wit h t he said consent order. 9 . I n such view of t he m at t er, present appeal fails and is dism issed accordingly. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( Ma n o j Ku m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 21.07.2025 21.07.2025 Rajni RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db484 48ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f1 7d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B 4DF4FC80D4557562F95BEBA013F5306 16A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN