Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
1. The application, seeking condonation of delay of 17 days in preferring this appeal, is not opposed by Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for
respondent-writ petitioner, and the delay is, therefore, condoned. Delay condonation application is, accordingly, disposed of.
2. Heard Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner and Mr. C.S.
Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and, with their consent, the Special Appeal is being disposed of at the
stage of admission.
3. Facts, not in dispute, are that the respondent-writ petitioner was appointed as a Class IV employee in the Nagar Palika, Pithoragarh on 01.04.1985.
His services were subsequently retrenched and he was, thereafter, absorbed by the State Government on 19.10.1996 in terms of the Government
Order dated 05.02.1996. The respondent-writ petitioner was granted the benefit of the promotional pay-scale on 02.12.2000, and was thereafter
extended the benefit of the 2nd ACP on 10.03.2014, which the appellants now claim was given by mistake. The 3rd ACP of the respondent-writ
petitioner, which fell due 26 years after he joined service, was rejected on the ground that his services were required to be reckoned from the date of
his absorption i.e. 19.10.1996 and not from 01.04.1985 when he was, undoubtedly, employed by the Nagar Palika, Pithoragarh.
4. While taking note of the fact that the respondent-writ petitioner was extended the benefit of the 1st and 2nd ACP on 02.12.2000 and 10.03.2014
respectively, and the services rendered in Nagar Palika, Pithoragarh was not taken into consideration only for the 3rd ACP, the learned Single Judge
found no justification in his being denied the 3rd ACP and, accordingly, quashed the impugned order and directed that the benefit of the 3rd ACP be
extended to the respondent-writ petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the State Election Commission, with whom the respondent-writ petitioner is employed,
is in appeal before us.
5. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellants, would draw our attention to the specific averment in the counter affidavit, filed in the writ
petition, wherein it is stated that a letter was addressed to the State Government seeking clarification with regards the ACP admissible to the
respondent-writ petitioner; the State Government had, by its letter dated 07.02.2014, clarified that the past services rendered by the respondent-writ
petitioner, prior to his retrenchment, could not be counted towards grant of ACP; a copy of the said proceedings of the State Government dated
07.02.2014 was also enclosed along with the counter affidavit; the said letter specifically states that the services rendered by the respondent-writ
petitioner, prior to his retrenchment from the services of the Nagar Palika, would not be taken into consideration, except for the purpose of pay
protection; and even though the said letter was not even subjected to challenge in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge had granted relief to the
respondent-writ petitioner.
6. The Assured Career Progression Scheme was introduced by the State Government, by its proceedings dated 08.03.2011, and only thereafter was
the respondent-writ petitioner extended the benefit of the 2nd ACP on 10.03.2014. It is only the 3rd ACP which the respondent-writ petitioner has
been held disentitled to. On the respondent-writ petitioner’s entitlement thereto, the State Government, in its proceedings dated 07.02.2014, (a
copy of which was enclosed along with the counter affidavit) had rejected such a request. The contents of the said letter were not even noted by the
learned Single Judge in the order under appeal, much less considered and dealt with.
7. While Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, would contend, relying on his rejoinder affidavit, that a copy of the said
proceedings of the State Government dated 07.02.2014 was not served on the respondent-writ petitioner, even this aspect has not been dealt with by
the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal.
8. It would be wholly inappropriate for us, in an intra-Court appeal, to undertake an examination as to the validity or otherwise of the said letter dated
07.02.2014 issued by the State Government, or to deal with the consequence of such a letter not having been served upon the respondent-writ
petitioner prior to his filing the writ petition, as these are all matters which ought to have been examined by the learned Single Judge in the first
instance.
9. We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to set aside the order under appeal, and restore the writ petition to file. Since the Writ Petition
relates to the year 2015, and pleadings are complete, it is open to Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, to request the
learned Single Judge to take up the writ petition for hearing on an early date.
10. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
