Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

WPSS/ 571/ 2024

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1. Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned

counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. N.K. Papnoi, learned Standing

Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. According to petitioner, he was engaged as daily wager for discharging duties as Helper in Irrigation Department in the year 1984; his services were terminated by oral order on 30.09.1988 against which petitioner raised an industrial dispute; learned Labour Court decided the dispute against the petitioner; petitioner challenged the award rendered by learned Labour Court in WPMS No. 425 of 2003, which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to Labour Court, and this time, learned Labour Court decided the reference in favour of petitioner vide award dated 14.08.2006 and petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service. The employer again challenged the said award before this Court by filing WPMS No. 277 of 2007, however, employer’s petition was dismissed by coordinate

Bench vide judgment dated 07.08.2008.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that petitioner was ultimately

reinstated on 28.02.2009.

5. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following

relief:-

(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature

of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authority to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date in which his juniors were regularized.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that junior to the petitioner, who were appointed as daily wager after 01.05.1984, have been regularised in service, however, petitioner’s claim for such regularisation has not been considered so far, therefore, the Competent Authority be directed to consider petitioner’s claim for regularisation from the date his juniors were regularised.

7. Mr. N.K. Papnoi, learned State Counsel, however, submits that persons, whom petitioner claims to be his junior, were continuously serving in the Department for the last more than two decades, without any break in service, therefore, their case was covered under the Uttarakhand Regularisation Rules, 2011 and thus, they were regularised. He further submits that service of the petitioner was not continuous, therefore, he was not eligible as per Uttarakhand Regularisation Rules, 2011, as such, he was not regularised. He further submits that under the Regularisation Rules, a Regularisation Committee has to be formed and on the recommendation of the Committee, the order of regularisation is issued by the Competent Authority. Thus, he submits that the order passed under Uttarakhand Regularisation Rules, cannot grant benefit of regularisation from a retrospective date. He also refers to Rule 7 of the Uttarakhand Regularisation Rules, which provides that a person regularised under the said Rules would