WPSS/1129/2020
2021 Latest Caselaw 5065 UK

             Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings
SL.
      Date     or directions and                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             Registrar's order with
                  Signatures

                                      WPSS No.1129 of 2020
                                      With
                                      WPSS No.1088 of 2020
                                      WPSS No.1187 of 2020
                                      WPSS No.1570 of 2020
                                      WPSS No.1574 of 2020
                                      WPSS No.1582 of 2020
                                      WPSS No.1594 of 2020
                                      WPSS No.1611 of 2020
                                      WPSS No.1793 of 2020
                                      WPSS No.1795 of 2020
                                      WPSS No.1799 of 2020
                                      WPSS No.1805 of 2020
                                      WPSS No.1808 of 2020
                                      Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners except WPSS No.1187 of 2020, in which Mr. Piyush Tiwari, Advocate is appearing for the petitioner.

Mrs. Indu Sharma, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

To be precise invariably in all these writ petitions, the petitioners have contended, that though despite of the fact that they have been working as daily wager with the Forest Department, as against their respective date of appointment in the status of a daily wager, their claim for regularization would fall to be within the ambit of the provisions provided under the Uttarakhand Forest Department, Regulations, Group D Rules of 2003 and the cut off date given thereunder.

The grievance raised by the petitioners in the writ petitions were that the juniors to the petitioners had been regularised by the respective orders passed on 06.09.2003, 11.09.2003, 17.09.2003, but the petitioners' claim for regularization has not yet been considered, though according to the petitioners the issue raised by them stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No.3536 of 2017 Prakashi Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand and others wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court had allowed the writ petition and had issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from the date of their juniors who have been regularized and give all the consequential benefits. The relevant part of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 22.10.2018 is extracted hereunder:-

"In view thereof, writ petition is allowed. Writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to regularise the petitioner forthwith with effect from the date his juniors have been regularized and give him all consequential benefits."

This judgment was put to challenge by the State in Special Appeal No.571 of 2019, State of Uttarakhand and Another vs. Prakashi Lal and the Division Bench, vide its judgment of 11.07.2019 had dismissed the Special Appeal preferred by the State with an observations, which has been made in para 17 and 18 of the said judgment of the Division Bench, wherein almost the claim of the petitioners for the regularization from the date of their juniors have been reiterated in the light of the principles considered by the learned Single Judge. Para 17 and 18 of the Division Bench judgment is extracted hereunder:-

"17. We are, however, satisfied that the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed the appellants to pay the respondent- writ petitioner all consequential benefits from the date his juniors were regularized, as that would require the appellants to pay him his regular pay-sales from that day, and for arrears of salary and other benefits till he retired from service in December, 2018. A similar question fell for consideration in Prem Ram vs. Managing Director, Uttarakhand Pey Jal and Nirman Nigam, Dehradun and others (order in Civil Appeal No. 4474 of 2015 dated 15.05.2015), wherein 8 the Supreme Court found no impediment in directing regularization of the services of the employee, on the analogy of his juniors, with effect from the date his juniors were regularized, and for the release of all retiral benefits in favour of the employee on that basis by treating him to be in continuous service till the date of his superannuation. The Supreme Court made it clear that the said direction did not entitle the employee to claim any amount towards arrears of salary based on such regularization.

18. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prem Ram, the respondent- writ petitioner is undoubtedly entitled to be regularized in service with effect from 17.09.2003, from which date his junior was regularized, and to be placed in the regular pay-scales from 17.09.2003 till he retired in December, 2018. The respondentwrit petitioner shall not only be extended the regular pay-scales from 17.09.2003 but he shall also be granted notional increments from that date till he retired from service, and shall be paid his retiral benefits on such notional fitment, however without being extended arrears of the differential salary for the period from 17.09.2003 till he retired from service in December, 2018."

The judgment of the Division Bench of 11.07.2019, thereafter to the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of the SLP (Civil/DiaryNo.1578 of 2020 preferred by the State, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment of 31.01.2020, the petitioners contend, that the issue at hand stands squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments whereby the claim of regularization and the grant of consequential benefits had been directed to be considered from the date when the juniors to the petitioners, who were identically appointed as that of the petitioners on daily rated basis were directed to be considered for regularization.

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents submits and attempts to carve out an exception, that in case if the vacancy is not existing, in that eventuality their claim of regularization of the petitioners, cannot be considered.

This contention of the learned counsel for the respondents tentatively is not accepted by this Court for the reason being, that it goes without saying that when the daily wager have been permitted to continue to function by them, admittedly ever since their initial date of appointment in 1991, its now almost over three decades, it goes without saying that there is work exigency and their need of services is perennial in nature and there exists the need of their services to be rendered with the respondents and their claim would falling to be within the ambit of regularization, as it has been provided under the Rules of 2003.

In view of the aforesaid logic, this contention is not accepted.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in some of the writ petitions, the services of some of the petitioners have already been regularized by the respondents.

It is made absolutely clear, that this judgment will have no bearing, as far as those petitioners' are concerned, whose services have already been regularized by the respondents and their services would be continued to be maintained under the same terms and conditions as provided in their respective order of regularization.

Hence, all these writ petitions are being disposed of and a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents in the light of the directions issued by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the judgment of 22.10.2018. Respondents would grant regularization to the petitioners from the date of their respective appointment of the juniors on regular basis and grant all consequential benefits, thereto.

Those persons, who have been already regularized during the pendency of the writ petition, their regularization will continue to operate under the same terms of regularization without their deprivation to be considered for extension of benefit of the judgments rendered by this Court.

Subject to the above, the writ petition stands allowed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 13.12.2021 Arti