2025:UHC:4822-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Special Appeal No. 472 of 2018 11th June, 2025 Gahrwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. And Others -------Appellants Versus Balwant Singh Shah -------Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for the respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.04.2018, passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 778 of 2009. By the said judgment, the writ petition filed by respondent, challenging the order of removal from service, was allowed on the ground that other similarly situated employees with identical charge were given lesser punishment and they were subsequently reinstated in service. Operative portion of the said judgment is extracted below: “Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 30.101992 and 28.05.2008 are quashed and set aside. The 1 2025:UHC:4822-DB respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the analogy of Shri Shishu Pal Singh Negi and Devi Lal Joshiyal within a period of ten weeks from today with all consequential benefits.” 2. It is not in dispute that respondent was appointed as Chowkidar in Gas Godown owned by Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. at Gopeshwar. During inspection made in the year 1990, it was found that gas was stolen from 185 LPG cylinders and number of cylinders was found to be less by 21. Managing Director, Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., passed an order of removal from service against Mr. D.L. Joshiyal, Manager of the Gas Agency, and also passed order of removal against three other persons, who were posted as Chowkidar in the said godown, namely, Shishu Pal Singh Negi, Chaman Lal and Balwant Singh Shah (respondent herein). It is also not in dispute that criminal prosecution was initiated against employees/officials of Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. pursuant to an FIR, however, all employees/officials were acquitted by the criminal court. 3. Before learned Single Judge, it was argued on behalf of respondent-writ petitioner that D.L. Joshiyal, Manager, serving in the Gas Godown, was reinstated in service in the year 1992, therefore the respondent, who had a lesser role in the incident and who was posted simply as Chowkidar, is also entitled for reinstatement in service. Respondent further contended that Shishu 2 2025:UHC:4822-DB Pal Singh Negi, another Chowkidar, who was also removed from service for the same charge, filed departmental appeal, which was allowed and pursuant to the order passed by appellate authority, Shishu Pal Singh Negi was reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Thus it was contended that respondent cannot be given step-motherly treatment when all other persons involved in the incident have been reinstated. Contention raised on behalf of respondent found favour with learned Single Judge and his writ petition was allowed and the employer was directed to reinstate the respondent in service, on the analogy of Shishu Pal Singh Negi, with all consequential benefits. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that other similarly situated persons were reinstated in service, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Learned Single Judge has given valid reasons for setting aside the order of removal passed against the respondent. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is supported by the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported as (2013) 3 SCC 73. 5. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned Counsel for the appellant, produced written instructions in the Court, which is taken on record. Based on written instructions, Mr. Kothari submits that respondent was removed from service vide order dated 30.10.1992 and 3 2025:UHC:4822-DB in terms of the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge, he was reinstated in service vide order dated 25.10.2018 and thereafter he was being paid full salary for the post he was holding. He further submits that respondent retired on attaining age of superannuation on 31.10.2022. On instructions, he submits that Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. is ready to give a lump sum amount of Rupees fifteen lakhs to the respondent in lieu of back wages and other benefits, to which he would have been otherwise entitled. 6. Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, submits that his client is ready to accept Rs. Fifteen Lakh in lump sum towards Back Wages and other monetary benefits. 7. While refusing to interfere with the impugned judgment, we dispose of the Appeal by providing that respondent will be entitled to Rs. 15 Lakh towards arrears of salary and other monetary benefits, for the period he remained out of employment and he will not be entitled to any further amount under any other head. The amount, as aforesaid, shall be paid to respondent, within six weeks, failing which, it shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) Dated: 11.06.2025 Kaushal 4