SUNIL KUMR RANA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, DEHRADUN
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010208372024
2026:UHC:9779
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Service Single No. 2485 of 2024
28 October, 2026
Sunil Kumr Rana
1. 1: Usha Devi
1. 2: Siya Rana
1. 3: Swayam Rana
--Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand Through Secretary Department Of
Secondary Education, Dehradun
2: Director
Secondary Education
U. K. Dehradun
3: Chief Education Officer
Pauri Garhwal
4: Principal
Atal Utkrisht Government Intermediate College
Chaubattakhal
Distt. Pauri Garhwal
--Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned senior counsel (through V.C), learned counsel
for the petitioner.
Mr. R.C. Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. The instant writ petition originally preferred by the
petitioner, Sunil Kumar Rana, however, during the pendency of
the writ petition he died on 02.02.2026. After the death of
original petitoner substitution application was moved for
1
UKHC010208372024
2026:UHC:9779
impleading the legal heirs-wife, daughter and son and the
Coordinate Bench allowed the substitution application on
20.04.2026 and now the wife, daughter and son of the original
petitioner are impleaded as petitioner nos. 1/1, 1/2 and 1/3
respectively.
2. Now, at this juncture, first of all the relief as sought in this
petition by the original petitioner (deceased employee) namely
Sunil Kumar Rana are being reproduced herein as under:
“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus, declaring the act of respondents in discontinuing
the petitioner from the statutory status of Ad-hoc Lecturer,
Mathematics, without notice and opportunity of being heard
w.e.f. 21-11-2014, as arbitrary and illegal and violative of
principal of natural justice.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus, declaring the act of respondents in removing the
petitioner from the post of Lecturer, Mathematics, as violative
of the mandate of law, underlined under Section 41 of the
'Uttaranchal Schools Education Act, 2006' as also violative of
Article 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India.
III. Issue a writ, order or the petitioner direction in the
nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 25-
07-2019 passed by the respondent no. 3, the Chief Education
officer, Pauri Garhwal, contained in Annexure-10 to this writ
petition.
IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus, commanding the respondents to re-instate the
petitioner in service forthwith with all consequential benefits
of service on the post of Lecturer, Mathematics in the
provincialised Institution, namely, Atal Utkrishta Government
Intermediate College, Chaubattakhal, Pauri Garhwal.
V. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus, commanding the respondents to pay arrears of
salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 21-11-2014 with interest @ 12%
per annum. The petitioner may also be held entitled to claim
seniority and notional promotion in the manner it has been
granted to one Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Papnai by judgment
dated 18.01.2022 passed in WPSS No. 2144 of 2019.”
2
UKHC010208372024
2026:UHC:9779
3. Since, on the previous date learned counsel for the
petitioner take a plea that the issue is similar to “Bhuwan
Chandra Papnai” , who approached to this court by way of
WPSS No. 2194 of 2019, which was allowed and the judgment
was also affirmed by the Apex Court and subsequently given
all benefits with reinstatement and on such submission the
State Counsel was directed to get instruction from the
concerned Secretary and the Director whether the issue as
raised is covered by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench
dated 18.01.2022 passed in WPSS No. 2144 of 2019, however,
today, on instructions Mr. R.C. Joshi, learned Brief Holder for
the State, submits that the issue is not covered. In addition to
this, learned Brief Holder for the State, submits that the
petitioner is no more and in his place his legal heirs have been
substituted and in the petition no consequential relief has been
sought. In response to this Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned senior
counsel submits that since during the pendency the original
petitioner died, therefore, there is no need to amend the relief
clause for the consequential relief since relief (iv) covered
consequential reliefs.
4. Now, the brief facts of the case are that the original
petitioner (deceased employee) was initially appointed as PTA
(Lecturer) in Janta Intermediate College, Chaubattakhal, Pauri
Garhwal on 01.07.1996 and in March, 2004 he was paid
honorarium of Rs. 4,000/- per month from the Government
Exchequer.
5. Subsequently, pursuant to the Government Order dated
03.02.2009 the District Education Officer, Pauri Garhwal on
29.06.2009 granted approval for giving adhoc status and on
such approval the deceased employee was given adhoc status
3
UKHC010208372024
2026:UHC:9779
in regular pay scale of Rs. 9,300-34,800 in terms of section 41 of
Uttarakhand School Education Act (In short Act No. 06 of 2006)
vide Order dated 30.06.2009.
6. Thereafter, pursuant to Government Order dated
05.03.2014 the State Government have decided to provincialize
some of the Institution and pursuant thereto the Janta Inter
College, Chaubattakhal, Pauri Garhwal was also provincialized
on 21.11.2014.
7. Surprisingly, On the date when the Institution was
provincialized the petitioner was removed from service on the
ground that he is not eligible since he is not B.Ed. qualified.
8. In the meantime, the deceased employee completed B.Ed.
in the year of 2016 and subsequently preferred a Writ Petition
(SS) No. 1213 of 2019 against his removal and the said writ
petition was disposed of finally on 27.05.2019 with the direction
to the Chief Education Officer to decide his representation.
Subsequently, the Chief Education Officer, Pauri Garhwal,
rejected the representation on 25.07.2019.
9. In the meantime, one another person namely “ Bhuwan
Chandra Papnai” also filed a writ petition by raising similar
issue, which was allowed by the Coordinate Bench on
18.01.2022 and the Director of Secondary Education was
directed to reinstate him in service with all consequential
benefits including the arrears of salary with effect from the date
of removal i.e. 11.03.2014 till the date of his reinstatement in
service with all consequential benefits including seniority and
notional promotion.
4
UKHC010208372024
2026:UHC:9779
The said judgment was assailed in Special Appeal No. 310
of 2022 and the same was also dismissed by the Division Bench
on 07.03.2024 and the order of the Coordinate Bench was
affirmed.
Subsequently, a Special Leave Petition was also filed that
too was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on
25.10.2024.
Consequently, in compliance of the directions of writ
court the said incumbent namely “Mr. Bhuwan Chandra
Papnai” was given all benefits including his reinstatement in
service by order dated 07.11.2024, the copy of which is also
placed on record.
10. Now, for the purposes of claiming the similar benefits as
was given to “ Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Papnai ” the original
petitioner submit again a representation to the Director of
Secondary Education on 20.11.2024, wherein, he has requested
to reinstate him in service by giving all benefits, which was
given to Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Papnai, but no action was taken
thereon and then the instant petition was filed on 30.12.2024
wherein the respondents filed their counter affidavit and
rejoinder affidavit is also filed.
11. Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned senior counsel, who appears
for the petitioner, vehemently argued that firstly when the
petitioner was given the adhoc status he was eligible as per the
existing rules. He submits that the deceased petitioner was
removed on the ground that he is not holding B.Ed.
qualification, though, as a matter of fact, the B.Ed. qualification
was included under Chapter II of the Regulations of 2009
(framed under Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006), which
5
UKHC010208372024
2026:UHC:9779
came into force w.e.f. the date of it’s publication in the official
gazette i.e. 10.07.2009, hence, the amended eligibility criteria in
terms of 2009 regulations was applicable prospectively and not
retrospectively, hence, it will not invalidate the adhoc status of
the deceased petitioner, which infact was given Adhoc Status in
terms of section 41 of Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006.
12. Mr. C.D. Bahuguna further submits that the sole ground
for rejecting the petitioner’s representation was that he lacks
B.Ed qualification, though as a matter of fact the B.Ed
qualification was inserted from the date of enforcement of
regulations of 2009, which came into force from the date of its
publication in the official gazette i.e. 10.07.2009 though much
prior to that the petitioner was granted Adhoc Status on
30.06.2009. He submits since the adhoc status was granted on
30.06.2009 under the prevailing norms and the criteria of B.Ed.
qualification under Chapter II of Regulation 2009 came into
force on 10.07.2009, therefore, the amended rules of 2009 should
applied strictly prospectively and retrospectively and as such it
cannot invalidate the adhoc status of the deceased petitioner.
13. In addition to this, Mr. C.D. Bahuguna further submits
that in an identical issue one Bhuwan Chandra Papnai
preferred a Writ Petition (SS) No. 2144 of 2019, which was
allowed on 18.01.2022 by the Coordinate Bench, which attains
finality since finally the SLP was also dismissed and
subsequently he was given all benefits including reinstatement
in service on 07.11.2024, therefore, the petitioner cannot be
discriminated also on this account also.
In furtherance of his argument, Mr. Bahuguna also
submits that one another person namely Raghuveer Singh Negi
6
UKHC010208372024
2026:UHC:9779
was granted 3 years time to obtain B.Ed. degree without
removing him from service and a specific averment has been
made in this regard which has not been denied but at the
relevant point of time no such opportunity was given to the
petitioner to obtain B.Ed. degree though subsequently the
deceased petitioner obtained B.Ed degree in the year of 2016.
Thus, the denying the similar benefits to the petitioner
constitute a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
14. In reference to the laches Mr. C.D. Bahuguna submits
since the issue as involved was settled by the Hon’ble Apex
Court by dismissing the SLP on 25.10.2024 and the person
concerned Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Papnai was subsequently
reinstated on 07.11.2024 with all benefits and thereafter the
petitioner immediately represent to the Director on 20.11.2024,
therefore, the laches will not come to his way particularly when
the issue was finally decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on
25.10.2014.
15. On the other side, Mr. R.C. Joshi, learned Brief Holder for
the State, strongly oppose the submissions of Mr. Bahuguna by
submitting that in terms of Regulations 36, 37 and 38 of Chapter
II of Regulation of 2009 as framed under Uttarakhand School
Education Act, 2006 the minimum qualification for
appointment of teachers in Government Aided Private Schools
is the same as has been prescribed in the Government
Secondary Schools. He submits that since Uttarakhand Special
Sub Ordinate (Lecturer Cadre) Service Rules, 2008 provides the
eligibility as Masters degree in the relevant subject as well as
B.Ed degree, therefore, the B.Ed. is the essential qualification
for appointment in the Government Aided Institution by virtue
of Regulations 36, 37 and 38 under Chapter II of Regulation
7
UKHC010208372024
2026:UHC:9779
2009, therefore, the petitioner was rightly removed on the
ground that he was not B.Ed. qualified.
16. Mr. Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State, further
argues that so far as the case of “Bhuwan Chandra Papnai” is
concerned, he was initially appointed as PTA Teacher on a
proposal of the Management against vacant post of Lecturer
with the approval of Parents Teacher Association whereas the
deceased petitioner was appointed by the Manager of the
Institution on the vacant post of Lecturer as a volunteer on
30.06.1996, therefore, his initial induction as PTA Teacher was
not according to the rules since no such legal process was
followed at the time of his induction as a PTA Teacher,
therefore, the petitioner cannot take the parity of this
incumbent.
In reference to another instance of Raghuveer Singh Negi
Mr. Joshi submits that the said incumbent was appointed as a
regular teacher by the management in Inter College, Seeku and
continued as such for 23 years from 1989 till the Institution was
provincialized on 22.12.2012, therefore, the petitioner cannot
take the plea of this incumbent also.
17. Finally, Mr. Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State,
concluded his argument by submitting that the petition is
heavily barred by the delay and laches as the petitioner
approach this court nearly 5 years after his initial
representation was rejected on 25.07.2019, therefore, the
petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
18. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and
having perused the materials on record there is no dispute that
the original petitioner was given adhoc status after due
8
UKHC010208372024
2026:UHC:9779
approval on 30.06.2009 whereas the Regulations of 2009 framed
under the provisions of Uttarakhand School Education Act was
came into force on 10.07.2009 the date when regulations were
published in the official gazette, therefore, the requirement of
B.Ed. as introduced and inserted shall apply prospectively and
will not apply retrospectively and there is no dispute that at the
time when the adhoc status was given to the petitioner the
B.Ed. was not the eligibility for appointment of Lecturer in
Government Aided Institution, therefore, the requirement of
B.Ed. qualification which came into force by virtue of
Regulation of 2009 w.e.f. 10.07.2009 will not take away the
adhoc status of the petitioner. Admittedly, while rejecting the
representation of the petitioner this aspect is nowhere has been
dealt with by the officer concerned.
No doubt, the Regulations 36, 37 and 38 under Chapter II
of Regulation of 2009 mandates Masters degree with B.Ed. for
appointment as Lecturer in Government Aided Private
Secondary Schools but the fact remains the Regulation came
into force w.e.f. 10.07.2009 whereas prior to that the petitioner
was given adhoc status in terms of section 41 of Uttarakhand
School Education Act, therefore, any subsequent amendment of
change in eligibility criteria will not take away a legal and
enforceable right, which accrued in favour of incumbent prior
to such amendment.
19. So far as the issue of Bhuwan Chandra Papnai is
concerned, the submissions as advanced by the learned Brief
Holder for the State cannot be accepted for the simple reason
that the original petitioner (deceased employee) was given
adhoc status in terms of section 41 of the Uttarakhand School
Education Act, which was never been cancelled or recalled.
9
UKHC010208372024
2026:UHC:9779
Therefore, the arguments as advanced on behalf of the
respondents that the case of “Bhuwan Chandra Papnai” is
distinguishable is not acceptable. Since the issue as raised is
dealt with by the Coordinate Bench which attains finality in the
case of Bhuwan Chandra Papnai, who subsequently in
compliance of the order of writ court reinstated with all
benefits, therefore, the petitioner (deceased employee) cannot
be discriminated on this account also and, as such, this court
holds that the original petitioner (deceased employee) is
entitled to get the same benefit as was given to “Mr. Bhuwan
Chandra Papnai” in terms of the judgment passed by the
Coordinate Bench dated 18.01.2022 in WPSS No. 2144 of 2019.
20. So far as the instance of Raghuveer Singh Negi is
concerned, it has some relevance particularly when the
petitioner also obtained B.Ed. degree in the year of 2016 after
his removal. Therefore, the question is if Mr. Raghuveer Singh
Negi was given sufficient time to obtain B.Ed. degree why the
original petitioner was not given opportunity to obtain B.Ed.
degree, therefore, on this account also the petitioner (deceased
employee) cannot be discriminated.
21. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the
respondents with regard to the delay and laches is concerned
there is no dispute that identical issue was dealt with by the
Coordinate Bench in the case of Bhuwan Chandra Papnai,
which now attains finality after dismissal of the SLP by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court on 25.10.2024 and thereafter the said
incumbent was given all benefits on 07.11.2024 and, therefore,
the legitimate claim of the original petitioner (deceased
employee) cannot be rejected only on account of laches. The
original petitioner (deceased employee) approach to this court
10
UKHC010208372024
2026:UHC:9779
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by taking plea
that other similarly situated incumbent has been given all
benefits in compliance of the order of the Writ Court, therefore,
when a legal and enforceable right is accrued in favour of a
person his claim cannot be rejected merely on the ground of
laches, hence, the submissions as advanced by the respondent
is outrightly rejected.
22. So far as the consequential relief after death of the original
petitioner is concerned the learned State counsel submits that
there is no such amendment with regard to consequential
reliefs. This court will not go on to all those technicalities
particularly in view of relief (iv), which in the opinion of this
court covers all consequential reliefs.
23. Consequent upon the observation and the finding as
recorded above, the instant writ petition is allowed. A writ of
certiorari is issued and the impugned order dated 25.07.2019
passed by the Chief Education Officer is hereby quashed, and
now this court issues the following directions to the
respondents:
i. The respondents are directed to treat the original
petitioner (deceased employee) Late Sunil Kumar Rana to
be in service as Lecturer at Janta Inter College w.e.f.
21.11.2014 (the date of provincialization) by giving the
same parity as given to “Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Papnai”
with continuity in service for all purposes upto his death.
ii. The respondents are directed to calculate the arrear of
salary and other consequential benefits from the date of
his removal till his death and release all the benefits
equally to the substituted petitioners i.e. 1/1, 1/2 and 1/3
11
UKHC010208372024
2026:UHC:9779
(within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order).
iii. The respondents are further directed to compute and
release all death-cum-retiral benefits including gratuity
and leave encashment to the legal heir the wife.
iv. The respondents are further directed to finalize and
sanction family pension in favour of the widow petitioner
no. 1/1 within a period of three months along with
arrears of pension from 03.02.2026 onwards.
It is made clear that in the event of non compliance within
the stipulated period all monitory benefits shall carry an
interest rate of 6 percent per annum till the actual payment is
made.
24. No order as to costs.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
PR
12