Back
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Pankaj Purohit, J
Baldev Joshi and Another – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Ors. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenged their discontinuation from services. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. state counsel argued that drda is not bound by regularization rules. (Para 7) |
| 3. court ruled petitioners failed to prove employment status. (Para 8) |
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Since in these writ petitions, common question of law and facts are involved, hence, they are being taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts of No.1877 of 2015 are taken into consideration alone.
2. By means of these writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.09.2014 as well as prayed for a direction to the respondents to permit them in the peaceful function on the post of Class IV in the District Rural Development Agency (D.R.D.A.)
Champawat and accordingly pay them salary.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that initially they were appointed on daily wages basis in the P.R.D.
(Pantiya Rakshak Dal) in the year 2003 and thereafter they were appointed with the respondent No.4-DRDA Champawat as Peon on contract basis in July 2007. On 14.11.2013, the respondent No.4 granted bonus to the petitioners. On 18.06.2013, the
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
