HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL

Special Appeal No. 9 of 2016

Hansha Datt Upadhyay ---Appellant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others –Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. C.S. Dalakoti,

learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. -------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

(Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

JUDGMENT

This intra-court appeal is filed by the writ-

petitioner challenging dismissal of his writ petition by learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 01.12.2015,

rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 996 of 2010.

2. In his writ petition, appellant had challenged order dated 27.04.2010, passed by Executive Engineer, Construction Division, Public Works Department, Nainital, whereby his claim for regularization was rejected on the ground that his case is not covered by Commission), Rules, 2002. The Executive Engineer had

given details about the number of days appellant served as daily wager in different years, which is as follows:-

S.No. Year Number of days

1. 1996 120 days 2. 1997 149 days 3. 1998 22 days 4. 2000 105 days 5. 2001 91 days 6. 2002 90 days

3. Learned Single Judge repelled the challenge to the rejection order, thrown by appellant on the ground that appellant has not brought any evidence to substantiate his contention that he served continuously as Amin/Surveyor during the relevant period, which is to be taken into account for regularization. Learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that at the time of filing of writ petition in 2010, appellant was 58 years of age and he attained 60 years of age, which is the age of superannuation in the year 2012, therefore in 1995, when appellant claims to have been appointed, he was about 43 years of age, which is more than the upper age limit for appointment under the State, which was 35 years at the relevant point of time.

4. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. As per Uttaranchal Rules, 2002, only such employee, who was directly appointed on ad-hoc basis before 30.06.1998 and was continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of those Rules i.e. 05.07.2002 and possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment on such post at the time of his ad-hoc appointment, alone was eligible to be regularized.

5. Appellant concedes that he was appointed as daily wager and not as ad-hoc employee and there is no pleading in the writ petition that appellant possessed qualifications required for the post of Amin /

Surveyor.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was engaged as Amin by Public Works Department, as his land was affected due to construction of Nathuwakhan-Suyalbari Road.

7. Learned Single Judge has given valid reasons for dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Admittedly, appellant attained age of superannuation in 2012. After attaining age of retirement, a daily wage employee cannot be regularized in service. There is no provision in the Rules for regularization from back date. 8. Thus, any interference with the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge would be uncalled for.

The Special Appeal thus fails and is dismissed.

( Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

[

Navin N CH A A VE N E D N R A DDo28psDcD e n .7 u o iN A a 5 r g = d = s t i . 8 : 4 a i e t f N t Hc 7 a0 l . : a 2 N = A5 l I 2 l C G0 I 6u V 6 0 yN o =H 4m d 2E s, d 3 3 5 a i Co be g b AN. 8 = 0 O =e n e F 2 8 H C r2 2U e 5 a = .H 6 3 2 Id 6 1 RG 13 9 D 3 A T b 8 H 0 2 1 N1 61 y O5 b 6 C 5 6 D 1 1 N F : 3 O 7 2 , 4 R A U 4 DEs 1 U 6 A e V t T 0 : e R = 3 4 F E 9 7 T UB A 5 6 0 N 5 O T + C Ra3 C 0 A 6 0 FC dAA 5 E 6K HU 3R ' D8 4H 3 c TA AC 2 9 0 0 A N b KFA ' a ANd D H1 8 RD D f5A 6 R 4 A, 4 , D A N 9 K 2 A 4 D H 1 3 ,A A f B b 1 N 2 9 0 D 1 0 3 , C 4 8 E 6