Uttarakhand High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 29 April, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No.1975 of 2017
Kuldeep Singh ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others .....Respondents
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sah, learned counsel for petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Singh Bisht, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court
seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated
01.06.2017 passed by respondent no.5 (Annexure No.1
to the writ petition), whereby the claim of petitioner for
regularization has been rejected.
3. It is the case of petitioner that he was engaged
as a Computer Operator/Junior Assistant on 12.06.2005
in Minor Irrigation Division, Pithoragarh. Petitioner is
still continuing against the said post without any break.
He preferred WPSS No.2254 of 2016 seeking
regularization in view of 'Daily Wages, Work-Charge,
Fixed Pay Scale, Part Time and Ad-hoc Employees
Regularization Rules, 2013' (to be referred to as Rules of
2013) according to his qualifying service mentioned in
the Rules. The said writ petition was disposed of vide
order dated 29.03.2017 and the respondents were
directed to consider the case of petitioner for
regularization if he is eligible under the Regularization
Rules of 2013. The claim of petitioner for regularization
has been rejected by the respondent-Department simply
for the reason that he was engaged through 'Prantiya
Rakshak Dal' (PRD) and not directly by the Department,
and accordingly, it was found that he was not eligible for
regularization. The petitioner has challenged the said
rejection order dated 01.06.2017 in this writ petition.
4. A counter has been filed by the respondent
nos.4 and 5 wherein, by referring to Annexure No.CA3 to
the affidavit, it is stated that petitioner was engaged
through PRD and therefore, he was not eligible for
regularization.
5. Petitioner has also filed his rejoinder affidavit
wherein the contention raised by respondents has been
refuted and it is submitted by him that he has been
working continuously since 2005 and is being paid
remuneration through State exchequer. In paragraph
no.4 of the rejoinder, it is stated that petitioner was
never engaged through PRD and for the purpose of such
engagement, as per the U.P. Pradeshik Rakshak Dal Act,
1948 and Rules framed there-under, every volunteer of
PRD has to go for training after being registered as
volunteer in PRD. Petitioner has, on oath, submitted
that he was neither registered with PRD as volunteer nor
was ever sent for any training. Petitioner has never been
issued any certificate which is issued by PRD to its
volunteers.
6. It is contended by learned Counsel for
petitioner that the stand taken by the respondents is just
to defy the claim of petitioner for regularization.
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel has
supported the averments made in the counter affidavit
arguing that petitioner is not engaged by the
Department, rather he was engaged through PRD.
8. Having considered the submissions made by
learned Counsel for either party, this Court finds force in
the submission put forth by learned Counsel for
petitioner that petitioner can only be engaged through
PRD once he is registered as a volunteer with PRD and
has undergone any training with PRD. The stand taken
by the State is nothing but is an eyewash to defeat the
claim of petitioner for regularization. The Rules of 2013
have been framed by the State to regularize the service of
such daily wagers and similarly situate persons on the
post if he has put in sufficient length of 05 years' service
on the said post on the date of publication of Rules of
2013. However, vide judgment and order dated .passed
in WPSB No.616 of 2018, Narendra Singh v. State and
others and batch, while disposing of the writ
petition(s)/special appeal(s), by modifying the 2013 Rules,
it has been held that after 04.12.2018, 10 years' period
will be taken into consideration for regularization. Thus,
having considered the purport of Rules of 2013 as well as
the very nature of appointment of petitioner, this Court is
of the opinion that petitioner is eligible for regularization
keeping in view his longstanding, regular and
uninterrupted service as a daily wager with the
respondents with effect from 12.06.2005.
9. Thus, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated
01.06.2017 passed by respondent no.5 (Annexure No.1
to the petition) which is under challenge in this petition,
is hereby set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari. A writ
of mandamus is further issued to the respondents to
regularize the services of petitioner on the post in
question at the earliest but not later than eight months
from today. No order as to costs. Pending application, if
any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
29.04.2024
Rdang
