Pankaj Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 242 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Pankaj Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 5 March, 2024

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

        Writ Petition (S/S) No.2004 of 2022

Pankaj Kumar                                ........Petitioner

                          Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others          ........Respondents

Presence:-
     Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner.
     Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel for
     the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 to 4.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Delay in filing the counter affidavit is condoned. Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2023) made therefor, stands disposed of accordingly. Counter affidavit filed by the State, is taken on record.

2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.09.2022 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition), whereby, his claim for regularization, has been rejected.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been working with the respondent department as part-time Tubewell Operator since 11.04.1996 continuously. Petitioner has moved an application/ representation dated 21.07.2022 to the respondent for regularizing his services on the post of Tubewell Operator, in view of the Regularization Rules of 2011.

4. When the said application/representation of the petitioner for regularization has remained pending and was not considered, the petitioner was constrained to move a writ petition No.1443 of 2022 (S/S) Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others, before this Court, which came to be decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.07.2022, whereby, the said writ petition was disposed of and a direction was issued to respondent No.2 to take decision on petitioner's representation dated 21.07.2022 expeditiously within a stipulated period.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, respondent No.2 has passed impugned order dated 24.09.2022, whereby, the representation of the petitioner for regularization of his service has been rejected.

6. From perusal of the order of rejection, it is demonstrated that the rejection was made by the respondent No.2 for the reason that on that date, when the representation was rejected, there was no regularization Rules in vogue and accordingly, representation was rejected on the simple premise that no Regularization Rules were there in existence on that day, therefore, the regularization cannot be done and the representation/application of the petitioner was rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is true that the Regularization Rules of 2016 have been scrapped by a judicial order passed by this Court and further Daily Wager, Work Charge, Contract, Fixed Salary, Part-time and Ad-hoc appointed employees Regularization Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred as "Regularization Rules 2013"), which were framed in suppression of Regularization Rules of 2011, were stayed in writ petition No.616 of 2018 (S/B) Narendra Singh and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others. Now, the said writ petition is decided by the Division Bench of this Court by reason of a judgment and order dated 22.02.2024, whereby, the Regularization Rules of 2013 was upheld and the said Rules have now been revived and are in the statute book and are presently covering the field.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has been working for the last so many years since 1996, his case is matured for regularization under the Regularization Rules 2013.

9. The counter affidavit has been filed by the State/respondents reiterating the reasons, which have been assigned by the respondent No.2 in its rejection order dated 24.09.2022, which is impugned in the writ petition. It was further stated that a stand was taken by the respondent No.2 in

its counter affidavit that in view of the Rule 4 and Rule 6 of the Regularization Rules, 2013, the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable for regularization.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

11. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, whereby, stay on the Regularization Rules of 2013 has now been vacated and the Rules of 2013 now hold the field and the petitioner is entitled for regularization under those Rules of 2013.

12. Per contra, learned State Counsel strongly submitted that since the petitioner does not fall even under Rule 4 and Rule 6 of the Regularization Rules of 2013, his services cannot be regularized, but, he failed to convince the Court as to why the said Rules are not applicable to the case of the petitioner.

13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has rendered a very long service since 1996 on the post of part-time Tubewell Operator with the respondent department and further the Rules prescribe for regularization of the part-time employees, and therefore, the Regularization Rules of 2013 are fully applicable to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for regularization.

14. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 24.09.2022 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed in view of the above discussions. A writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No.2 commanding him to immediately regularize the service of the petitioner under the Regularization Rules of 2013 within a period of 60 days from today.

15. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 05.03.2024 PN