The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order dated 24.01.2017, which restrained the regularization of incumbents by means of outsourcing under the Regularization Rules, 2016, was not applicable to the petitioners' case under the Regularization Rules, 2013.

U.C. Dhyani, J.

1. Since the factual matrix of the above noted writ petitions and law governing the field is the same, therefore, all the writ petitions are being decided together, by a common judgment, for the sake of brevity and convenience.

2. By means of above noted writ petitions, the petitioners seek following relief, among others:

“Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to forthwith regularize the services of the petitioners on the post of Paryvaran Mitra/Safai Karamchari, pursuant to Regularization Rules, and also considering one time settlement for regular posting as approved by State Government, petitioners further prays for a direction to the respondents to grant minimum of Regular Pay Scale along with Dearness Allowances of the post of Paryavaran Mitra /Safai Karamchari on the principle of equal pay for equal work (as revised from time to time).

3. Petitioners were appointed on contractual basis in Nagar Palika, Rudrapur, between 2003 to 2007 as Safai Karmcharis and have been working continuously without break till date. Nagar Palika, Rudrapur, was upgraded to Nagar Nigam in 2013, vide G.O. dated 22.11.2016. Vide G.O. dated 23.11.2016 & G.O. No. 1405/IV (1)/2016-01 (32)/14 dated 19.12.2016, the State Government created as may as 859 posts of Safai Karmcharis/Paryvaran Mitras and also provided for Regularization Rules, 2013 as part of one time settlement. In pursuance of the aforesaid G.O. No. 1405/IV (1)/2016-01 (32)/14 dated 19.12.2016, the Additional Director, Urban Development Directorate, Dehradun, vide letter dated 21.12.2016, directed various Nagar Nigams of the State to regularize the services of 859 Safai Karmcharies/Paryavaran Mitras in the State by means of a selection committee constituted for the purpose. The said letter consisted of the names and details of 859 incumbents, whose services were to be regularized on the basis of One Time Settlement as declared by the State.

4. In spite of the clear dictates of the State Government and in spite of the selection of the petitioners’ name by the Selection Committee constituted by the State Government, respondent no. 4, by wrongly applying the dictum of this Court (in judgment dated 24.01.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 154 of 2017, Himanshu Joshi and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others), vide impugned letter dated 01.04.2017 requested for instructions from the Government. A similar letter dated 02.06.2017 was written by the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Udham Singh Nagar to the Additional District Magistrate, Nazul, thereby requested for instructions in the matter for regularization of the employees of the Nagar Nigam.

5. On the letter of respondent no. 4, the Director, Urban Development, Dehradun vide letter dated 01.05.2017, addressed to the Secretary, Urban Development Department, apprised the State Government that in spite of One Time Settlement, as issued by the State Government, the employees of the various Nagar Nigams were agitating and sought for the instructions from the State Government.

6. It is submitted that Additional Secretary, Urban Development Department, vide impugned letter dated 10.07.2017, addressed to the Director, Urban Development, Dehradun, has wrongly observed that in view of the judgment/order dated 24.01.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 154 of 2017, Himanshu Joshi and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, this Court has stayed the Regularisation Rules and no regularization could be done.

7. In pursuance to the aforesaid, the Director, Urban Development, Dehradun, vide order dated 17.07.2017 has written to the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigams, as well as the Executive Officers of all the Nagar Palikas that in view of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 154 of 2017, Himanshu Joshi and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, the regularisation of the Nagar Nigam Employees was not proper.

8. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners t