SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1820

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
GANESH CHANDRA PANT – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH ITS SECRETARY IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT – Respondent
WPSS 1294/ 2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.P. Upadhyay, Hem Chandra Joshi
For the Respondents: Sushil Vashistha

Eligibility for regularization of daily wagers is determined by the fulfillment of the prescribed service period under applicable rules and the official recognition of their employment status by the competent authority.

Headnote:The matter pertains to a claim for regularization on the post of Turner under the Regularisation Rules of 2013. The petitioner has been serving as a daily wager since April 1993, but the claim was previously stalled due to a stay on the 2013 Rules. The court noted that the stay was vacated and the rules were modified to require 10 years of service as of 4.12.2018 for regularization. The central issue is whether the petitioner qualifies for regularization given the dispute over whether the service was as a daily wager or an outsourced employee. The court observed that the Chief Engineer (Mechanical) had treated the petitioner as a daily wager in an order dated 17.3.2018 and confirmed the availability of a vacancy. the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider petitioner’s claim for regularisation under the applicable rules and pass necessary orders, as per law, within eight weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

Table of Content
1. modification of regularization rules to extend the required service period to 10 years. (Para 2)
2. determination of employment status as daily wager versus outsourced employee based on official records. (Para 3)
3. direction to competent authority to decide regularization claims and grievances as per law. (Para 4 , 5)

Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings

Date or directions

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

(2) Petitioner is claiming regularisation on the post of Turner. As per order dated 17.3.2018, passed by Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Irrigation Department, petitioner is serving as daily wager continuously since April, 1993. Petitioner’s claim for regularisation was earlier not considered on the ground that the Regularisation Rules framed by the State Government in 2013 was stayed by Division Bench of this Court. The stay granted by Division Bench of this Court has now been vacated and Writ Petition (S/B) No. 616 of 2018 was decided vide judgment dated 22.2.2024. Para 6, 7 and 8 of the said judgment are reproduced below:

“6. In the present case, there was an interim order of stay dated 04.12.2018, that no orders of regularization will be passed by the State Government, under the 2013 Rules. Hence, since 04.12.2018 no regularization orders have been passed. All those persons, who have been regularized as per the 2013 Rules before 04.12.2018, have worked for more than 13-14 years now. With respect to other candidates, who have to be regularized now, they can be regularized, as per the 2013 Rules, by taking into consideration 10 years’ service, instead of 05 years, as of now.

7. Accordingly, the 2013 Rules are being modified that, after 04.12.2018, 10 years’ period will be taken into consideration for regularization.

8. In view of the above, all the above mentioned Writ Petitions/ Special Appeals are disposed of. “

(3) The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that petitioner served as an outsourced employee from 1998 till 2017. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is right in submitting that Chief Engineer (Mechanical), in his order dated 17.3.2018, has treated the petitioner to be serving as daily wager throughout. Learned Senior Counsel submits that Chief Engineer, in the order dated 17.3.2018, has mentioned that vacancy is available on the post of Turner and recommendation was also made in respect of the petitioner for his regularisation. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that Regularisation Rules of 2013 were amended in December 2025 and as per amended rules, anyone who has completed 10 years as on 4.12.2018 is eligible for regularisation.

(4) Since petitioner is eligible for regularisation under Regularisation Rules of 2013 , therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider petitioner’s claim for regularisation under the applicable rules and pass necessary orders, as per law, within eight weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

(5) Petitioner shall be at liberty to make representation regarding his other grievances, which, if made within two weeks from today, shall be decided by the competent authority, as per law, within eight weeks thereafter.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top