IMPORTANT POINT
The revival of the Regularization Rules of 2013 allows for the regularization of employees previously denied due to the absence of a valid policy.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of this writ petition, petitioners pray for following reliefs:

“(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to show and treat the petitioners as outsource employees and further respondents be directed to treat the petitioners as direct employees of Uttarakhand Warehousing Corporation.

(ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.06.2017 passed by respondent No.1.

(iii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to regularize the services of the writ petitioners w.e.f. the date from which the juniors to the writ petitioners have been regularized and pay all the consequential benefits along with interest as per modified seniority list prepared in accordance with law.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were initially engaged by the Uttar Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation as casual clerks on daily wages on 18.06.2008 and 24.07.2000 respectively. The petitioners continued as such with the Uttar Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation. After its bifurcation and exercising option, the petitioners are still continuing their services as casual clerks with the Uttarakhand Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) and are presently posted at Gadarpur and Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

3. The petitioners continued their services as daily wager employees with the respondent-Corporation, therefore, they moved a representation claiming their regularizations, but, the prayer of the petitioners did not find favour with the respondent-Corporation and the same was rejected.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the petitioners’ claim for regularization, petitioners have filed a writ petition (S/S) No.219 of 2017, which came to be decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.04.2017 giving a direction to the Competent Authority to decide the representation of the petitioners within a period of 8 weeks from the date of passing of order i.e. 07.04.2017 by passing a speaking/detailed order.

5. Thereafter, respondent No.1 rejected the representation of the petitioners vide order dated 28.06.2017. The petitioners are now before this Court challenging the said rejection order.

6. It is contended by the petitioners 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.1 saying that the Regularization Rules of 2016, which were currently in force, has been completely stayed by the order dated 24.01.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petitioner (S/S) No.154 of 2017, and, therefore, the regularization of the petitioners could not be done and accordingly, the representation moved by the petitioners, was rejected.

7. Respondent No.1/Corporation has filed counter affidavit and in the said counter affidavit, it has been specifically stated that since, the Regularization Rules 2016 were stayed by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No.154 of 2017, which was allowed and Regularization Rules of 2016 was quashed. It is further stated by the respondent-Corporation in its counter affidavit that Regularization Rules 2013, which were in force, were stayed by this Court in another writ petition, therefore, there was no regularization policy in force at present, hence, the services of the petitioners could not be regularized.

8. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioners.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that while rejecting the representation of the petitioners for regularization, the only ground taken by the respondent-Corporation was non-existence of the regularization policy inasmuch as the Regularization Rules of 2016 were stayed. In counter affidavit, it has been submitted by the respondent-Corporatio