IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the 2011 regularization rules superseded earlier rules, allowing for the regularization of employees based on their continuous service history.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

The writ petition was filed challenging the office memorandum dated 26.05.2018 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure No.1) to the writ petition whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Tube-Well Operator was rejected.

2. Facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details are that the petitioner was initially appointed as part time Tube Well Operator with respondent no.4 on 05.05.1982. The services of the petitioner was brought to an end by an order dated 08.08.1985. The petitioner took the disengagement of his services as part time Tube Well Operator by challenging it to the Labour Court by raising an industrial dispute and the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haridwar vide judgment and award dated 13.06.2011 allowed the Adjudication Case No.281 of 2009 in favour of the petitioner and he was permitted to be reinstated but was not granted back wages. The said order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haridwar dated 13.06.2011 has never been challenged by any of the respondents and the same had attained finality.

3. The petitioner was subsequently reinstated with respondents department vide order dated 21.06.2013 as part time Tube Well Operator.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of Adjudication Case before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haridwar, the erstwhile State of U.P. has promulgated Rules known as Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department Irrigation Regularization of Part Time Tube-Well Operators on the post of Tube-Well Operators Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and as per the Rules the part time Tube Well Operators are entitled to be regularized if they have been engaged prior to cut off date dated 01.10.1986.

5. After his reinstatement, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent no.2 with a request to regularize him as Tube Well Operator with respondents department. The said representation of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order dated 26.05.2018. Feeling aggrieved, against the aforesaid order, petitioner is before this Court.

6. The counter affidavits were filed by the contesting respondents raising similar contentions. It has been stated that Rules of 1996, as stated above, will not be applicable to the petitioner, as the State of Uttarakhand has already framed its Rules vide Notification No.1412/XXX(2)/2011-02(1)/2006 dated 21.11.2011 under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regularization of daily wager, work charge, fixed salary, part time and ad-hoc appointees. It is further submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner was not for his regularization rather the same was made for payment of salary at par with the ad-hoc Tube Well Operators pursuant to the judgment dated 18.05.1994 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No.3558 of 1992. It is further submitted by the State Counsel in its counter affidavit that the petitioner remained disengaged for long span of time i.e. 24 years and was engaged only after the adjudication case was allowed.

7. A rejoinder affidavit was filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by the State merely contending therein that since the Rules of 1996 were framed especially for the purpose of regularization of part time Tube Well Operators by the erstwhile State of U.P., therefore, the Regularization Rules, 2011 framed by the State of Uttarakhand shall not be applicable

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner very strenuously that once the petitioner was reinstated by virtue of judgment and award dated 13.06.2011 passed by the learned Labour Court, Haridwar, the reinstatement would relate back to the date of disengagement as part time Tube Well Operator with effect from 08.08.1985 and he shall be treated regular in service as part time Tube-Well Operator. It is further submitted that since the Rules of 1996 were framed by the erstwhile St