Uttarakhand High Court
Gokulanand Pandey vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 25 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 711 of 2018
Gokulanand Pandey ......... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others .......Respondents
Present: Mr. Amish Tiwari , Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.C. Bisht, Additional CSC with Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the
State/respondent nos. 1 to 3.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The petitioner seeks that the respondents may consider his
case for regularization in the Class-IV post of Keet Palak in the
Government Silk Farm Kafalkhet, Bageshwar in accordance with
Uttarakhand Daily Wager, Work Charge, Contract, Fixed Salary Part
Time and Ad-hoc Appointee Regularization Rules, 2011 (for short "the
2011 Rules).
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State
counsel and perused the record.
3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Keet Palak
in the Government Silk Farm Kafalkhet, Bageshwar on 17.01.2001. Since
then, he has been working in the department continuously. Earlier, he was
not working for whole of the year, but it is the case of the petitioner that
since 2007, he is regularly working without any gap. The petitioner made
representations for his regularization, but it was not done.
4. According to the petition, the employees, who worked for ten
years prior to the coming into force of the 2011 Rules, are eligible for
regularization.
5. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 have filed their counter affidavit.
The basic objection is that the petitioner did not work continuously since
2001 and he had not worked for ten years prior to the coming into force of
the 2011 Rules.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner did work with the department since 2001. In the earlier years of
his service, he worked for some days of the year and for some months of
the year, but since 2007 he has been working continuously without gap. It
is argued that in accordance with Rule 4 of the 2011 Rules, respondents
are not considering his case for regularization. Learned counsel would
also submit that in the counter affidavit, respondent nos. 2 and 3 have not
placed the correct picture. They have placed the documents pertaining to
some other silk farm, may be from Garur.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that
as per the records available, the petitioner did not work with the
department, since 2001. He has been working continuously since 2017
and from 2007 to 2017, he has only worked for 208 days. Therefore, it is
argued that he is not eligible for regularization under the 2011 Rules.
8. The eligibility of the petitioner for regularization is being
disputed only on the ground that the petitioner did not work for the
prescribed period. It is a question of fact which requires deeper scrutiny.
9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that if the
respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for
regularization, in accordance with the 2011 Rules, after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also permission to him to
make his representation alongwith all the relevant documents, it would
better serve the interest of justice.
10. Respondent nos. 2 is directed to consider the case of the
petitioner for regularization under the 2011 Rules within three months
from today. The petitioner shall make a detailed representation alongwith
all the relevant documents to the respondent no.2 within a period of two
weeks from today. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 shall fix a date and
afford an opportunity of oral hearing and decide the case of the petitioner
by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
11. The writ petition is disposed in the above terms.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
25.02.2021
Jitendra
