IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that denying regularization to senior daily wagers while juniors were regularized is unjust, and past service should only count for pension benefits.

JUDGMENT :

(per Ms. Ritu Bahri, C.J.) The facts of the present case are that out of the three petitioners, services of the writ petitioner nos.1 and 2 was regularized, and they were given a benefit of regularization notionally on the date of their superannuation i.e. on 31.05.2018 and 30.09.2017. However, the benefit of notional benefit of the regularization was not given to the writ petitioner no.3. He was retired on 31.01.2017.

2. Keeping in view the above fact, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petitions, in paragraph 52 of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in WPSS No.910 of 2021, “Ganga Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others” and connected matters, it has been observed that if juniors to the employees, who were appointed as daily wager has been regularized that could not be a valid reason for the State for not considering the regularization of those employees, who were appointed as a daily wager prior to them.

3. This aspect has been considered in detail in “Prem Ram Vs. Managing Director, Uttarakhand Pey Jal and Nirman Nigam, Dehradun and others” 2015 INSC 428, dated 15.05.2015, by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and it had considered this aspect, where regularization was given to the juniors and denied to the senior daily wager. In paragraph nos.7, 8, 9 of the judgment, it was observed as under:-

“7. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 8th July, 2013, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation was granted time to take instructions whether any scheme within the contemplation of para 53 of Umadevi (3) case (supra) had been formulated by the respondent-Corporation and in case no such scheme has been formulated, whether the Corporation is willing to formulate one. The matter again came up for hearing on 18th November, 2013. It was argued by Ms. Rachana Srivastava, counsel appearing for the respondent-Uttarakhand Pey Jal & Nirman Nigam that while the Nigam had passed a resolution adopting the scheme formulated by the State Government in terms of the directions of this Court in Umadevi (3) case (supra), the Government’s approval for such an adoption had not so far been received. She prayed for and was granted time to place on record a copy of the Government scheme adopted by the Nigam as also the resolution under which the same was adopted besides, a copy of the approval, if any, granted by the Government to such adoption. On 27th October, 2014, when the matter came-up once again for hearing, our attention was drawn to additional documents filed by the appellant from which it appeared that the persons who figured at serials no.78 to 82 at page 12 of the said additional documents had been regularized w.e.f. 1st July, 2003, although their entry into service was shown to be 6th of June, 1989 onwards. It was on that basis argued that persons junior to the appellant having been regularized in service, whereas the appellant could not have been deprived of a similar benefit simply because his services were illegally terminated. On behalf of the respondent-Jal Nigam it was, on the other hand, argued that there was a difference between cases of persons appearing at serial nos.78 to 82 and that of the appellant inasmuch as the former were work-charged employees while the appellant was appointed as a daily-wager. At the request of learned counsel for the respondent-Nigam the matter was adjourned by four weeks to enable the Nigam to file an additional affidavit as to whether regularization had been ordered after undertaking any screening/selection process and if so, on what terms and condition.

8. From the affidavit filed, in compliance with the directions issued by this Court, it appears that the Government of Uttarakhand had framed Regularization Rules2011 for regularization of daily-wagers and temporary employees who had been appointed on or before 1st November, 2011 and had completed 10 years of continuous service by that date. The said Rules were then adopted by the Board of respondent