IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that continuous service and the revival of Regularization Rules of 2013 entitled the petitioner to consideration for regularization despite the 10-year service argument.

JUDGMENT :

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) :

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for quashing the order dated 15.09.2016 (Annexure No.14 to the writ petition), and further to direct the respondents to consider his case for regularization.

2. The brief facts of the case are that since 23.07.2005, petitioner is discharging his duties as JCB/Robot Operator/Driver in PWD Division, Gopeshwar. It is the case of petitioner that he made a request for giving him appointment on daily wage basis on 06.05.2008. The petitioner has been moving representation since long seeking regularization but of no result. Earlier, he preferred WPSS No.725 of 2013 which was decided on 27.06.2013 permitting petitioner to move a representation and respondent no.3 was directed to decide the same, however, the said representation was decided in negative by order dated 15.09.2016. Hence this petition.

3. It is contended by the petitioner in the writ petition that the order of rejection of the representation is highly arbitrary and against the law, as the representation was rejected by the respondent No.3 in violation of Regularization Rules of 2013.

4. Respondent-Department has filed its counter affidavit denying the case of petitioner on the ground that he was not directly appointed but he was appointed through a Contractor. It is further contended in the counter affidavit that since, the petitioner was engaged through registered Contractor and did not fulfill the criteria of the Rule-4 of the Regularization Rules of 2013, he is not entitled for regularization on the post of Robot Operator as no such post is sanctioned or vacant in the departmental structure. It is also contended that the petitioner was engaged on recommendation of the Assistant Engineer vide letter dated 09.06.2005, owing the necessity of work, only for a period of 03 months and further, the petitioner was being paid through Hand Receipt Form-28, which is used only for miscellaneous payments.

5. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the status of the petitioner at the time of promulgation of Regularization Rules of 2013 would be relevant for the purpose of regularization. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent-department has not denied that the petitioner has been working with the department as Robot Operator since 2005 continuously, which fact makes it clear that there is a necessity of the working of the petitioner in the department and the work, which has been performed by the petitioner is perennial in nature, hence, still the services of the petitioner are needed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the case of the petitioner could be considered under the Regularization Rules of 2013, by which time he had completed 5 years as originally was the requirement, as per Regularization Rules of 2013, but, the said Rules have been stayed in WPSB No.616 of 2018, Narendra Singh and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, wherein, a challenge was thrown to the validity of the Rules. The attention of this Court was further drawn to the fact that now, WPSB No.616 of 2018, has been finally decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 22.02.2024, whereby, the Regularization Rules of 2013 was upheld and are back in the statute book. Now, the services of the petitioner can be considered for regularization under those Rules by the respondent-department.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State strongly supported the contention raised in the counter affidavit. Apart from this, though, it is admitted that the controversy with regard to the validity of the Regularization Rules of 2013 has been put to an end by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 22.02.2024, it is argued by the learned State Counsel that by the said judgment, in place of