2025:UHC:5922-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS Delay Condonation Application (CLMA No. 9485 of 2018) In SPA/523/2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / appellants. 2. Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the respondent. 3. As per office report, there is 47 days delay in filing the special appeal. 4. For the reasons indicated in the delay condonation application, we are inclined to condone the delay of 47 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, delay condonation application is allowed. 5. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.04.2018, rendered by learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 2602 of 2015. By the said judgment, writ petition filed by respondent challenging oral termination passed against her, was set aside. 6. State has challenged the said judgment on the ground that services of respondent were not terminated orally, as alleged by her, but, she was simply transferred from Lalkuan Nursery of the Forest Department to Tanda 2025:UHC:5922-DB Nursery. 7. Per contra, Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the respondent submits that husband of the respondent was appointed as a daily wager in Tarai Central Forest Division, Haldwani in the year 1988 and he served continuously as such till his death on 10.06.2010; upon death of her husband, respondent filed a writ petition claiming compassionate appointment, and due to judicial intervention by this Court, she was given appointment, but as a daily wager. He submits that on account of filing of writ petition, officers of Forest Department got annoyed and they made life of the respondent miserable, and ultimately, her services were orally terminated w.e.f. 01.11.2015. He submits that State has to act as a model employer, however, the manner in which respondent was dealt with by the authorities was unbecoming of the role of the State as a model employer. He further submits that learned Single Judge has given valid reasons for setting aside the oral termination order, therefore, any interference with the impugned judgment would not be warranted. 8. We find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent. Respondent’s husband rendered unblemished service of 22 years in the Forest Department. 2025:UHC:5922-DB Reportedly, persons junior to her husband were regularised in service, however, respondent’s husband was denied that benefit. Once, respondent was offered appointment on compassionate ground, though as a daily wager, it was incumbent upon the authorities of the Forest Department to deal with her sympathetically having regard to the tragedy that she suffered at a young age. Instead of adopting a sympathetic attitude, respondent was orally terminated from service. Thus, learned Single Judge was justified in interfering with the oral termination order. 9. Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the respondent submits that monetary benefits have been released to the respondent in terms of the impugned judgment. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, any interference with the impugned judgment would be unwarranted. Thus, special appeal fails and is dismissed. We, however, set aside the direction to recover the amount from the officer concerned issued by the impugned judgment. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 09.07.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f 487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A10381 9DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21C E5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.07.10 10:20:17 +05'30'