Uttarakhand High CourtWPSS/3290/2018 on 27 September, 2018Author:V.K. BistBench:V.K. BistWPSS No.3290 of 2018
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate for
the petitioners.Mr. N.S. Pundir and Mr. M.C.
Tewari, Deputy Advocate General for the
State of Uttarakhand.Heard learned counsel for the
parties.Admit the petition.It is brought to the notice of the
Court that about 1000 persons have
been disengaged, inasmuch as, various
orders have been passed for giving equal
pay for equal work.As prayed, six weeks' time is
granted to the learned Deputy Advocate
General for filing counter affidavit.List this matter, as a first case after
fresh cases, on 13.11.2018 alongwith
WPSS No. 2913 of 2018.In the meantime, it is provided that
in case work is available in the
respondent Department, the petitioners
shall be permitted to work on the same
terms & conditions on which they were
permitted to work in previous years.It is also directed that in case
petitioners      are    disengaged,      the
respondents will not engage any other
person from outsourcing.It is further directed that the
respondents shall pay the salary to the
petitioners for the period they have
worked within a period of three weeks
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order.It is also directed that, in none of
the Department of the State of
Uttarakhand, no work shall be given
 from outsourcing, disengaging the
workers, who are already working in the
Department, in pursuance of the
Government Order dated 27.04.2018.Counter affidavit in the matter
shall positively be filed by the Principal
Chief       Conservator     of     Forest,
Uttarakhand within the stipulated
period. In the counter affidavit, to be
filed, he will explain as to why work is
not available when about 1000 persons
have been disengaged. If the respondent
reaches to the conclusion that the work
is not available for the petitioners and
similarly situated workers, in that
event, the respondent shall explain, in
his counter affidavit, why work is not
available and how the work in the
Forest Department is being done, which
was earlier done by the petitioners and
other similarly situated workers. The
respondent will also state in the counter
affidavit     that     why      temporary
appointment was given after 10.04.2006
i.e. after the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of
"Secretary, State of Karnataka & others
Vs. Umadevi & others".(V.K. Bist, J.)
Arpan                        27.09.2018