Uttarakhand High Court
Mahendra Singh And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 4 June, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No.1589 of 2022
Mahendra Singh and another ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Presence:-
Mr. Amish Tiwari, ld. counsel for petitioners.
Mr. Narain Dutt, learned S.C. for State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner has sought issuance of a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to regularize their services on the posts
of Palledar/Chowkidar under the 'Daily Wagers, Work Charge,
Contractual, Fixed Wages Employees' Regularization Rules 2013
(hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules of 2013).
3. It is the case of petitioners that they have been working
as daily wagers with respondent-Department since 1990 and 1989
respectively. Some times in the year 2012, an application was moved
by petitioners seeking regularization but the same could not find
favour with the respondents on the ground that the posts which fell
vacant during that period belonged to reserved category. According
to learned counsel, petitioners have matured their right for
regularization on the basis of Rules of 2013. It needs to be mentioned
that those Rules were put to challenge before a Division Bench of this
Court in WPSB No.616 of 2018, Narendra Singh and Another Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others, which were initially stayed pursuant
to an interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court.
However, with the passage of time, the said WPSB No.616 of 2018
has finally been decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide
judgment and order dated 22.02.2024, whereby, the Regularization
Rules of 2013 were upheld and brought back in the statute book, and
it was directed that in place of 05 years, those employees who have
put in service with the respondent-State as a daily wager employee(s)
for last 10 years, would get the benefit of regularization under the
Rules of 2013.
4. On the last date, learned Counsel for petitioners pressed
the writ petition but from the pleadings of petition, it was not clear
whether there were vacancies available with the respondent-
Department or not. In between, the respondent-State has filed its
supplementary counter affidavit, in paragraph no.5 whereof, it is
stated that two posts have become vacant in the Department and the
regularization of petitioners would be considered by the Department
as per relevant rules.
5. In view of the supplementary counter affidavit filed by
respondent -State, it is borne out that two posts are available with the
Department against which petitioners can well be accommodated.
Moreover, as per the seniority list, petitioners are the only employees
who have been left out for regularization.
6. In such view of matter, the writ petition is allowed. A
writ of mandamus is issued to respondent-State to consider the case of
petitioners for regularization at the earliest but not later than within
four weeks from today.
7. The respondent -State is further directed to consider the
case of petitioners regarding payment of minimum of wages
@Rs.18,000/- per month from 2016 onwards, if applicable qua
petitioners, which according to petitioners, is being paid to the
employees of District Supply Office in other districts.
8. No order as to costs.
9. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
04.06.2024
Rdang
