Jagat Singh Kathayat vs Union Of India And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 1332 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Jagat Singh Kathayat vs Union Of India And Others on 8 July, 2024

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

          Writ Petition (S/S) No.454 of 2023

Jagat Singh Kathayat                    ....Petitioner
                            Versus
Union of India and others            .....Respondents
                            With

          Writ Petition (S/S) No.455 of 2023

Jyoti Prasad                             ....Petitioner
                            Versus
Union of India and others            .....Respondents

          Writ Petition (S/S) No.457 of 2023


Rajiv Gupta                              ....Petitioner
                            Versus
Union of India and others            .....Respondents

          Writ Petition (S/S) No.458 of 2023


Rajeev Thapa                         ........Petitioner
                            Versus
Union of India and others              ....Respondents

          Writ Petition (S/S) No.461 of 2023


Santosh Kumar                        ........Petitioner
                            Versus
Union of India and others            .....Respondents

          Writ Petition (S/S) No.462 of 2023


Govind Singh Aswal                       ....Petitioner
                            Versus
Union of India and others            .....Respondents

          Writ Petition (S/S) No.463 of 2023


Vinod Verma                              ....Petitioner
                            Versus
Union of India and others            .....Respondents
                                     2




            Writ Petition (S/S) No.464 of 2023


Kamal Kumar Verma                                 ....Petitioner
                                 Versus
Union of India and others                            .....Respondents

     Present:- Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel along with Mr. Nikhil
     Singhal, learned counsel (appeared through V.C.) for the petitioners.
     Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned C.G.S.C. for the
     Union of India.
     Mr. Vikas Pande, learned counsel for respondents-Wildlife Institute.


Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Since all these petitions entail common questions of fact and law hence these are being taken up together and decided by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners, in these writ petitions, are working with the respondent-Wild Life Institute on contractual basis on different posts since more than 18 years. Some of the persons, who were working with the respondents on contractual basis, have moved this Court by filing a Writ Petition (S/S) No.319 of 2016 (Gyanesh Chhibber vs. Union of India & others) and batch of writ petitions seeking their regularization. During the pendency of that writ petition, a proposal dated 17.10.2017 was made by the respondent-Director of the Wildlife Institute to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Government of India for regularization of the services of the petitioners since they have been working with the respondent-Wildlife Institute since 11 to 30 years totalling 23 persons in number.

3. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had disposed of the Writ Petition (S/S) No.319 of 2016 (Gyanesh Chhibber vs. Union of India & others) and batch of writ petitions vide judgment and order dated 07.11.2017 directing the Secretary of the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Government of India to consider the recommendation of the Director, Wildlife Institute of India dated 17.10.2017 and to pass appropriate orders thereon within stipulated period from

the date of production of certified copy of the order dated 07.11.2017. Respondent no.1 vide order dated 24.05.2018 rejected the proposal made by the respondent-Director, Wildlife Institute and declined to regularize the services of the 23 contractual employees working with the respondent-Wildlife Institute, which also includes the petitioners of the Writ Petition (S/S) No.319 of 2016 (Gyanesh Chhibber vs. Union of India & others) and batch of writ petitions. The petitioners of that writ petition challenged the Central Government order dated 24.05.2018 by filing a Writ Petition (S/S) No.3569 of 2018 (Gyanesh Chhibber vs. Union of India & others). In the meantime, one of the petitioners of the earlier batch of writ petitions (Gyanesh Chhibber vs. Union of India & others) had also preferred the Special Appeal No.455 of 2018 before the Division Bench of this Court against the judgment and order dated 07.11.2017, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein the clear-cut directions were not made for regularizing the services of the petitioners, rather a direction was made to the Central Government to comply and accept the proposal made by the Director, Wildlife Institute.

4. Both writ petition and special appeal mentioned hereinabove have been decided by the Division Bench of this Court by a common judgment and order dated 31.10.2018. The order dated 24.05.2018 passed by respondent no.1 of that writ petition was quashed and set-aside and the respondents were directed to regularize the services of the petitioners taking into consideration the length of their service on the basis of letter dated 17.10.2017 (a proposal made with a Director, Wildlife Institute) within a period of ten weeks from the date of passing of that judgment dated 31.10.2018. The said judgment was unsuccessfully challenged by respondent- Wildlife Institute before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Now, these petitioners are among the 23 persons who were also contractually appointed with the petitioners of the aforesaid writ petition and they seek the similar treatment to be given to

them, so far as with regard to the regularization of their services is concerned.

5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties; having gone through the judgment and order passed by this Court and perusal of the record, it is reflected without any doubt that the petitioners are also among the 23 persons for whom the Director has sent a proposal for their regularization, keeping in view their long standing service as contractual employee with the respondent- Wildlife Institute.

6. Since the similarly situated persons have already been regularized after the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No.3569 of 2018, the present petitioners are also entitled to get the same benefit. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization on their respective posts, keeping in view the judgment and order dated 31.10.2018, passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No.3569 of 2018 (Gyanesh Chhibber vs. Union of India & others).

7. Petitioner in WPSS No.463 of 2023 is retiring today i.e. 08.07.2024. Since all the persons similarly situated have been directed to be considered for regularization by this Court vide today's order, the same benefit shall be extended to the petitioner of this writ petition along with all consequential benefits.

8. No order as to costs.

9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 08.07.2024 AK