CLCON/93/2022
2023 Latest Caselaw 2085 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                         COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  Recall Application (MCC No. 2 of 2022)
                                  In
                                  CLCON No. 93 of 2022
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Piyush Tiwari, Advocate for the applicants.

2. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. The Contempt Petition filed by petitioners was closed 21.06.2022, after recording the statement made by learned State Counsel that services of petitioners have been regularised. The said final order is sought to be recalled on the ground that petitioner is entitled to regularisation from 17.09.2003. Learned State Counsel, however, has drawn attention of this Court to the following paragraph of the judgment sought to be enforced by the contempt petitioners:-

"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."

4. Based on the aforesaid paragraph of the judgment, learned State Counsel submits that since petitioners' services stood regularised during pendency of writ petition, therefore, in view of the aforesaid stipulation in the final order dated 13.12.2021, petitioner is not entitled for retrospective regularisation. He points out that services of petitioners were regularised vide order dated 09.04.2021 while his writ petition was pending, therefore, no further relief can be granted to petitioners, in view of the aforesaid stipulation in the order passed on his writ petition.

5. This Court finds substance in the said contention.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners relies upon the judgment rendered Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3536 of 2017 Prakashi Lal v. State of Uttarakhand and others in support of his contention that petitioner is entitled to retrospective regularisation from 2003.

7. Since the Writ Court has made it clear in the final order passed on petitioners' writ petition that the order of regularisation, if passed in respect of the petitioners, then date of their regularisation would not be altered.

8. In such view of the matter, the prayer of applicants for altering the date of their regularisation to 17.09.2003 cannot be acceded.

9. Accordingly, Recall Application is rejected.

10. All pending Applications stand disposed of.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 04.08.2023 Navin