IMPORTANT POINT
Continuous service is essential for regularization under the Regularization Rules, and the revival of these rules permits the petitioner to seek regularization despite previous employment through an outsourcing agency.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.

1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus, directing and commanding the respondent Nagar Palika Parishad Jaspur to the effect that it shall change status of the petitioner in its record i.e. EMPLOYEES Roll and treat her contractual employee of the respondent nagar palika in place of employee of the respondent No. 4 i.e. outsource agency.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent Nagar Palika Parishad Jaspur to consider case of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Junior Assistant/Data Entry Operator as per its board resolution dated 17-07-2016 resolution no. 58 (15) [Annexure-7] after getting proper sanction/approval from the state government in accordance with the provisions contained in the regularization rules 2013 and further in meantime during pendency of regularization proceedings, grant minimum pay scale/wages to her as admissible to the regular employee of same post on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.05.2003, respondent No. 3-Nagar Palika Parishad Jaspur issued an advertisement inviting applications from the Computer Operators for the purpose of computer typing and for working of double entry system tally for a period of one year, which was contractual in nature. On 13.05.2003, petitioner moved her application before respondent No. 3 for getting contractual appointment on the post of Computer Operator. The petitioner was selected and joined respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad as Computer Operator (contractual). She continued to work as Computer Operator and thereafter, the said contractual period was extended time to time and in doing so, till the end of the year 2015, petitioner was working as an contractual employee, therefore, on 17.01.2016, the board of the respondent Nagar Palika Parishad in its board meeting vide resolution no. 58(15) passed a resolution and granted its approval. The petitioner became hopeful that in a very short span her services are going to be regularized but, the respondent Nagar Palika Parishad informed the petitioner orally that she cannot be regularized, as her name is figuring in the list of outsource agency. The petitioner made a representation dated 25.08.2017 to the respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad Jaspur to consider her case for regularization treating her the employee of respondent-Nagar Palika in place of employee of outsourcing agency, which is still pending consideration. Hence this petition.

3. It is contended by the petitioner in the writ petition that the petitioner has completed more than 5 years continuous service with the respondent Nagar Palika Parishad Jaspur and as per existing Regularization Rules 2013 she became eligible to be regularized on the post of Junior Assistant/Assistant Computer Operator.

4. Respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad has filed its counter affidavit denying the case of petitioner on the grounds that she was not directly appointed rather she was appointed through an Outsourcing Agency. It is further contended in the counter affidavit that since, the petitioner had never completed 5 years of continuous service as contractual Employee of Nagar Palika Parishad Jaspur and further she is working in Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur through outsourcing agency, therefore she did not fulfill the criteria of the Rule-4 of the Regularization Rules of 2013 and in compliance of the Government Order No. 1023/sha-Vi.Na.-Vividh-2018 (Structure)/15 T.C. dated 17.07.2017, the petitioner cannot be regularized. Palika also relied upon the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.02.2019 in WPSB No. 30 of 2019 Anuj Khati Vs. General Manager, Uttarakhand Purva Saini Kalyan Nigam (UPNAL), wherein, the petitioner had approached this Court for commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue working as an Assis