Harish Kumar Pal and ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and anr.

Harish Kumar Pal and ors. vs State of Uttarakhand and anr.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Uttaranchal Decided Feb 17, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/902481

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/902481
Court: Uttaranchal High Court
Judge: J.S. Khehar, C.J. and; Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Decided On: Feb 17, 2010
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MINING Direction to State Government to consider all applications afresh in light of interpretation of Section 11 of the Act and Rules 35, 59 and 60 of MC Rules Main issue : Whether the State Government's recommendation dated 06.12.2004 and the proceedings of the Chief Minister are contrary to the provisions of...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Harish Kumar Pal and ors.

Respondent

State of Uttarakhand and anr.

Excerpt

.....dated 15.03.2003.[para 42] d) whether rule 35 of the mc rules justify the recommendation of the state government in favour of the respondents-jindal and kalyani -- as discussed above, rule 35 only permits the state government to take additional factor of the "end use" of the minerals and not the existing investments made by the applicants. moreover, relying on the existing investments made, the respondents also does not satisfy the requirements under section 11(3)(d) which talks solely about proposed investments to be made and not the existing ones.[para 44] e) whether the criterion of "captive consumption" referred to in tata iron and steel co. ltd. vs. union of india, (1996) 9 scc 709, have any application in this case despite not being one of the factors referred to in section 11 (3) of the mmdr act or rule 35 of the mc rules -- we have already held that section 11(3) specifies the matter relevant for purposes of second proviso to section 11(2). we also referred to the committee's report. in accordance with the recommendation in the said report, section 11(3)(d) was added as part of the substitution of section 11 in the year 1999. sub-section (d) provides that "the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on minerals" and it speaks about investment proposed to be made and not past investments. thus it confines the concept of "captive consumption of minerals to proposed investment and not past investments". even the residuary clauses in section 11(3)(e) are limited to "matters as may be prescribed", which would necessarily mean matters prescribed by rules. this is fortified by decision of this court in bsnl ltd. & anr. vs. bpl mobile cellular ltd. & ors., (2008) 13 scc 597, para 45.[para 35] f) whether factors such as the past commitments by the state government to applicants who have already set up steel plants, matter for consideration for grant of lease despite the mmdr act and the mc rules constituting a..........counsel for the petitioners has now to be rectified in terms of the seniority list issued in 2009.3. it is also pointed out that the seniority in the cadre of sub-treasury officers is regulated by the uttarakhand treasury subordinate services rules, 2003 wherein the relevant rules stipulate that seniority in the cadre of accountants will be maintained in the cadre of sub-treasury officer when an individual is promoted from the cadre of the accountants to the cadre of sub-treasury officers. it is pointed out that the seniority list of sub-treasury officers was finalized in the year, 2003. but, based on the revised seniority list of accountants, the same ought to have been revised keeping in view the rule referred to. however, that according to the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been done.4. additionally, it is pointed out that on the basis of the seniority list of sub-treasury officers issued in 2003, further promotions have been made to the treasury officers. this again according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is in violation of the statutory rule referred to hereinabove.5. at the commencement of hearing of this case, we required learned counsel for the petitioners to inform us whether the persons liable to be affected (in case the prayers made in the instant writ petition were to be accepted) have been impleaded as party respondents. in response to which, he informed us that he is only seeking a formal amendment as per the finalised position expressed by the respondents themselves in the seniority list issued in 2009, and as such, it is not necessary to implead the affected persons as party respondents. we are satisfied that the instant submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is wholly unjustified. the petitioners have failed to impleaed the affected parties as party respondents. accordingly the instant writ petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties, and as such, is liable to be dismissed, for this.....

Full Judgment

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1. The respondents issued a seniority list of Accountants in the year, 2002. The seniority list was assailed by the petitioners through Writ Petition (SB) No. 529 of 2002. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take a decision in the matter keeping in mind the claim raised by the petitioners. It is not a matter of dispute that the aforesaid seniority list which was issued in the year, 2002 stands corrected in 2009. The petitioners have not disputed the seniority list finalized in the year, 2009.

2. Promotion from the cadre of Accountants is to the cadre of Sub-Treasury Officers. The seniority list of 2002 would therefore regulate the promotion of the Sub-Treasury Officer. By an order dated 6.8.2002 persons some of whom were junior to the petitioners were promoted as Sub-Treasury Officers on the basis of the seniority list of 2002. This according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners has now to be rectified in terms of the seniority list issued in 2009.

3. It is also pointed out that the seniority in the cadre of Sub-Treasury Officers is regulated by the Uttarakhand Treasury Subordinate Services Rules, 2003 wherein the relevant rules stipulate that seniority in the cadre of Accountants will be maintained in the cadre of Sub-Treasury Officer when an individual is promoted from the cadre of the Accountants to the cadre of Sub-Treasury Officers. It is pointed out that the seniority list of Sub-Treasury Officers was finalized in the year, 2003. But, based on the revised seniority list of Accountants, the same ought to have been revised keeping in view the rule referred to. However, that according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners has not been done.

4. Additionally, it is pointed out that on the basis of the seniority list of Sub-Treasury Officers issued in 2003, further promotions have been made to the Treasury Officers. This again according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner is in violation of the statutory rule referred to hereinabove.

5. At the commencement of hearing of this case, we required learned Counsel for the petitioners to inform us whether the persons liable to be affected (in case the prayers made in the instant writ petition were to be accepted) have been impleaded as party respondents. In response to which, he informed us that he is only seeking a formal amendment as per the finalised position expressed by the respondents themselves in the seniority list issued in 2009, and as such, it is not necessary to implead the affected persons as party respondents. We are satisfied that the instant submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is wholly unjustified. The petitioners have failed to impleaed the affected parties as party respondents. Accordingly the instant writ petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties, and as such, is liable to be dismissed, for this reason itself. The instant writ petition is accordingly dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

6. In addition to the aforesaid, it is apparent that the petitioners have raised a grievance of improper finalization of the seniority in the cadre of Sub-Treasury Officer, as also, the promotion of their juniors without considering their own claim. These issues can be agitated by the petitioners before the State Public Services Tribunal. It is, therefore, apparent that an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioners, in respect of the cause of action agitated by the petitioners through the instant writ petition. The petitioners, if they are so advised, may therefore, approach the State Public Services Tribunal for redressal of the grievances.

7. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Uttaranchal · 2010 Same Parties Harish Kumar Pal and ors. vs State of Uttarakhand and anr. Same Subject Service Same Judge J.S. Khehar, C.J. and; Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Service