I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL HON’BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

HON’BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J SPECI AL APPEAL No.868 of 2019 Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar …Appellant Versus Subodh Kumar Sharma …Respondent With SPECI AL APPEAL No.871 of 2019 Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar …Appellant Versus Govind Chandra Pandey …Respondent With SPECI AL APPEAL No.872 of 2019 Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar …Appellant Versus Janardan Joshi …Respondent Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, learned counsel.

Counsel for respondent Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel.

JUDGMENT : (PER HON’BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J)

The point raised by learned counsel for the parties in all these special appeals is common, and hence these special appeals are being decided by a common order. However for the sake of brevity facts of Special Appeal No.868 of 2019 alone are being considered and discussed.

2. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.07.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2501 of 2017. Operative portion of the impugned judgment is reproduced below:-

“23. All the writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 27.06.2017 is hereby quashed. A mandamus is hereby issued to the respondent authorities to now consider the regularization of the petitioners treating them to be their employees. Let a decision be taken on this within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received by the appropriate authority of the University.”

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that writ petitioners/respondent, herein, were engaged through contractor for discharging the duties as “Group D” employees in University. He further submits that State Government has declared all “Group D” posts as dying cadre, therefore, services of the writ petitioners/respondents herein cannot be regularized.

4. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners (respondents) contends that his clients were engaged directly by the University in the year 2001, subsequently in 2003, an intermediary was brought in to defeat the rightful claim of the writ petitioners. He submits that intermediary/contractor were changed from time to time, however, writ petitioners have worked continuously in the University without any break whatsoever. He further submits that the mere fact that writ petitioners have served in the University continuously for 25 years reveals that the work is of perennial in nature, therefore the University cannot now contend that work or post is not available. He also submits that State Government has framed Rules for Regularization in the year 2013, and writ petitioners fulfill the eligibility requirement for regularization as per 2013 Rules. He further submits that G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, has adopted the Regularization Rules of 2013, which have been invoked for regularizing the service of the employees of G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. Thus, he submits that learned Single Judge rightly allowed the writ petitions by directing the authorities to consider the claim of writ petitioners for regularization.

5. We find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners that after serving for nearly 25 years in G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology without any interruption, writ petitioners have earned a right to be considered for regularization. It is not the case of appellant that work or conduct of the respondents/writ petitioners is not satisfactory or not upto the mark. The long continuous service rendered by respondents leads to the only inference that the work is perennial in nature, therefore, the respondents cannot be denied their right to be considered for regularization, which flows from statutory rules framed by State Government. The