Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 33
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
Vijay Pratap Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1100 of 2019
Decided On : 08-05-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Vinay Kumar.
For the Respondent: Narayan Dutt.
IMPORTANT POINT
Long-serving contractual employees against sanctioned posts are entitled to regularization under applicable rules, especially when previous grounds for denial are invalidated.
Headnote:
Regularization - Lecturer Position - Regularization Rules, 2013 - The court interpreted the Regularization Rules, 2013, emphasizing the right to regularization for long-serving contractual employees against sanctioned posts, leading to the decision to quash the rejection of the petitioner's claim.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regularization of his services as a Lecturer after being engaged on a contractual basis since 1997. His representation for regularization was rejected based on a stay of the Regularization Rules, which was later lifted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been working against a sanctioned and vacant post and had a legitimate expectation for regularization, as the grounds for rejection were no longer valid.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization of his services as a Lecturer under the Regularization Rules, 2013.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that long-term contractual employees working against sanctioned posts have a right to regularization, especially when previous grounds for denial are no longer applicable.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the petitioner’s services are to be regularized forthwith.
JUDGMENT :
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court for a direction to quash the order dated 23.01.2018, passed by Secretary, Tourism, Government of Uttarakhand, whereby claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services on the post of Lecturer in Government Hotel Management and Catering Institute, Almora.
2. Facts of the case shorn-off unnecessary details are that the petitioner pursuant to an advertisement submitted his candidature for the post of a contractual position of Lecturer (Front Office). The petitioner was selected after facing an interview and was engaged as Contractual Lecturer (Front Office) with respondent no. 4, in the year 1997.
3. It is case of the petitioner that the petitioner was engaged as Contractual Lecturer with respondent no. 4 against a sanctioned and vacant post and the petitioner fulfills the qualification for the said post undisputedly. The petitioner after promulgation of the Daily Wages, Work-Charge, Fixed Pay Scale, Part Time and Ad-hoc Employees Regularization Rules, 2013 (for short “Regularization Rules, 2013”) made a representation to respondent no. 4 on 17.01.2014 for regularizing him on the post of Lecturer (Front Office) with respondent no. 4. When representation of the petitioner was not given any heed, the petitioner was left with no other option but to file a Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1366 of 2014, Vijay Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, which was disposed-off by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2017, whereby respondent no. 4 was directed to make a fresh representation and the respondent was directed to decide the same within a period of eight weeks’ from the date of that order.
4. The petitioner moved a fresh representation to respondent no. 2-Director, Tourism, Directorate of Tourism, Uttarakhand on 25.07.2017, but the said representation was rejected by respondent no. 1-Principal Secretary, Tourism, Government of Uttarakhand. The reason for rejection of the representation of the petitioner was only one that the Regularization Rules, 2013 has been stayed by this Court in a Writ Petition (S/B) No. 616 of 2018, Narendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand.
5. Now the ground which has been taken by the respondent for non-regularization of the petitioner no longer exists as the aforesaid petition has been disposed-off vide judgment and order dated 22.07.2024 by the Division Bench of this Court and the effect of decision of the aforesaid writ petition was automatically revival by the Regularization Rules, 2013.
6. Since the petitioner has been working on the post of Lecturer (Front Office) with respondent no. 4 from 1997, uninterruptedly, there would be no reason for this Court not to pass order directing respondents to take a decision on the matter of Regularization of the petitioner.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner though working in a contractual position with the respondents, but he is not working against the sanctioned and vacant post of Lecturer (Front Office) and vide order dated 31.05.2020 petitioner was sacked by respondent no. 4. This contention of learned Standing Counsel is contrary to the record as reflects from page no. 97 of the writ petition wherein, it was written by the respondent Principal to Director that petitioner was working against a regular vacancy. Thus the same is rejected being contrary to above letter dated 08.06.2017. More so, this was never a ground for rejecting the representation of petitioner vide impugned order.
8. Another submission made by learned State counsel that petitioner’s services were dispensed with vide order dated 31.05.2020 is concerned, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is still working and he was re-engaged in the Month of July, 2020 in the next Academic Season on the aforesaid position on which he has been working since 1997.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
