Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Pankaj Purohit, J.
Raj Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No.447 of 2023
Decided On : 14-03-2024
Regularization - Employment - Uttarakhand Regularization of Daily Wager Rules 2013 - The court upheld the revival of the Regularization Rules 2013, emphasizing the right to regularization for long-serving daily wagers despite changes in employment status.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a daily wager since 1999, sought regularization after his representation was rejected by the Uttarakhand Warehousing Corporation, citing new rules that were stayed by the court. The petitioner argued that similar employees were regularized and that the rejection was arbitrary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grounds for rejecting the petitioner's representation were no longer valid due to the revival of the Regularization Rules 2013, which allowed for the regularization of the petitioner's services.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's representation for regularization was justified given the revival of the Regularization Rules 2013 and the petitioner's long service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reasons for rejecting the petitioner's claim were invalid as the Regularization Rules 2013 had been upheld, and the petitioner had a right to regularization based on his long service.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the rejection order is quashed, directing the regularization of the petitioner's services.
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for quashing the rejection order dated 18.10.2022 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition), whereby, the representation of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected by the respondent No.2.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially engaged by the Uttar Pradesh Warehousing Corporation in the year 1999-2000 as casual clerk on daily wages. The petitioner continued as such with the Uttar Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation when the said Corporation was divided and Uttarakhand Warehousing Corporation came into existence. The petitioner still continued his service as a casual clerk with the Uttarakhand Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) and is presently posted at Nakroda, Dehradun.
3. Since, petitioner has been continuing his service as a daily wager employee with the respondent-Corporation, therefore, he moved a representation on 10.01.2017 claiming his regularization, but, the prayer of the petitioner did not find favour with the respondent-Corporation and the same was rejected. However, the respondent-Corporation ignored the fact that several similarly situated casual clerks were regularized on 02.01.2017 and respondent No.4 was one of such regularized casual clerks.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for regularization, petitioner filed a writ petition (S/S) No.1715 of 2020, which came to be decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.07.2022 giving a liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the Competent Authority claiming regularization, within two weeks’ from the date of passing of order i.e. 08.07.2022 and the respondent-Competent Authority was directed to decide the representation so made by the petitioner within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation along with the certified copy of that order.
5. The petitioner submitted a fresh representation on 22.07.2022 accompanied with the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 08.07.2022 passed by this Court. The said representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 18.10.2022.
6. The petitioner is now before this Court, aggrieved by the rejection of his representation vide its order dated 18.10.2022.
7. 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.2 saying that the Regularization Rules of 2011 have been superseded by new Rules known as the Uttarakhand Regularization of Daily Wager, Work Charge, Contract, Fixed Salary, Part-time and Ad-hoc appointed employees Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred as “Regularization Rules 2013”) which have been stayed by the order of this Court. Since, Regularization Rules of 2013 are stayed by this Court, the regularization of the petitioner cannot be done and accordingly, the representation dated 22.07.2022 moved by the petitioner, was again rejected.
8. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now, the ground taken by the respondent-Corporation for rejecting the representation of the petitioner does not exist anymore inasmuch as the writ petition No. 616 of 2018(S/B) Narendra Singh and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others has now finally decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 22.02.2024 and the Regularization Rules of 2013 have been upheld. Thus, the Regularization Rules 2013 have now been revived and are in the statute book and are presently covering the field. In the backdrop of this new development, now, there is no hurdle for regularizing the services of the petitioner with the respondent-corporation.
9. Respondent-Corporation has filed its counter affidavit and in the said counter affidavit, it has bee
The court established that long-serving daily wagers have a right to regularization under applicable rules, regardless of changes in employment status.
The revival of the Regularization Rules of 2013 allows for the regularization of employees previously denied due to the absence of a valid policy.
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.
Long service and applicable regularization rules justify entitlement to regularization despite previous rules being invalidated.
The court established that employees cannot claim regularization unless they are working against sanctioned posts, as per the Jharkhand Regularization Rules of 2015 and 2019.
Daily wage employees who meet the eligibility criteria under the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001, are entitled to be considered for regularizat....
Point of law : Petitioner herein did not put in 10 years of service under the respondent herein at any point of time. While that being so, the impugned order, placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.22 and G.O....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
