Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
Pankaj Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No.2004 of 2022
Decided On : 05-03-2024
Regularization - Employment - Regularization Rules 2013 - The court interpreted the Regularization Rules of 2013, determining that the petitioner, having served since 1996, was entitled to regularization despite previous rules being scrapped.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his regularization claim as a part-time Tubewell Operator, which was denied on the grounds that no regularization rules were in effect at the time of rejection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Regularization Rules of 2013 were applicable to the petitioner, who had served for many years, and thus he was entitled to regularization.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization under the Regularization Rules of 2013 despite the previous rules being scrapped.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the long service of the petitioner and the applicability of the Regularization Rules of 2013 warranted his regularization.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the order rejecting regularization is quashed.
JUDGMENT :
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
Delay in filing the counter affidavit is condoned. Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2023) made therefor, stands disposed of accordingly. Counter affidavit filed by the State, is taken on record.
2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.09.2022 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition), whereby, his claim for regularization, has been rejected.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been working with the respondent department as part-time Tubewell Operator since 11.04.1996 continuously. Petitioner has moved an application/ representation dated 21.07.2022 to the respondent for regularizing his services on the post of Tubewell Operator, in view of the Regularization Rules of 2011.
4. When the said application/representation of the petitioner for regularization has remained pending and was not considered, the petitioner was constrained to move a writ petition No.1443 of 2022 (S/S) Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others, before this Court, which came to be decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.07.2022, whereby, the said writ petition was disposed of and a direction was issued to respondent No.2 to take decision on petitioner’s representation dated 21.07.2022 expeditiously within a stipulated period.
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, respondent No.2 has passed impugned order dated 24.09.2022, whereby, the representation of the petitioner for regularization of his service has been rejected.
6. From perusal of the order of rejection, it is demonstrated that the rejection was made by the respondent No.2 for the reason that on that date, when the representation was rejected, there was no regularization Rules in vogue and accordingly, representation was rejected on the simple premise that no Regularization Rules were there in existence on that day, therefore, the regularization cannot be done and the representation/application of the petitioner was rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is true that the Regularization Rules of 2016 have been scrapped by a judicial order passed by this Court and further Daily Wager, Work Charge, Contract, Fixed Salary, Part-time and Ad-hoc appointed employees Regularization Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred as “Regularization Rules 2013”), which were framed in suppression of Regularization Rules of 2011, were stayed in writ petition No.616 of 2018 (S/B) Narendra Singh and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others. Now, the said writ petition is decided by the Division Bench of this Court by reason of a judgment and order dated 22.02.2024, whereby, the Regularization Rules of 2013 was upheld and the said Rules have now been revived and are in the statute book and are presently covering the field.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has been working for the last so many years since 1996, his case is matured for regularization under the Regularization Rules 2013.
9. The counter affidavit has been filed by the State/respondents reiterating the reasons, which have been assigned by the respondent No.2 in its rejection order dated 24.09.2022, which is impugned in the writ petition. It was further stated that a stand was taken by the respondent No.2 in its counter affidavit that in view of the Rule 4 and Rule 6 of the Regularization Rules, 2013, the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable for regularization.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, whereby, stay on the Regularization Rules of 2013 has now been vacated and the Rules of 2013 now hold the field and the petitioner is entitled for regularization under those Rules of 2013.
12. Per contra, learned State Counsel strongly submitted t
Long service and applicable regularization rules justify entitlement to regularization despite previous rules being invalidated.
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.
The court established that the 2011 Regularization Rules apply to part-time employees, allowing for their regularization based on continuous service prior to the cut-off date.
The court established that the 2011 regularization rules superseded earlier rules, allowing for the regularization of employees based on their continuous service history.
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.
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....
There are enough breaks in service of the petitioner-appellant in almost all the years and he has not worked for months together- findings that the petitioner-appellant has not put in seven years of ....
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.
The right to regularization under the Rules of 2016 is based on continuous engagement prior to the cut-off date and possession of requisite qualifications, regardless of initial appointment validity.
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
