Uttarakhand High Court
Pramod Kumar And Another ... vs Uttarakhand State Warehousing ... on 14 March, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No.3495 of 2018
Pramod Kumar and Another ........Petitioners
Versus
Uttarakhand State Warehousing Corporation
And Another ........Respondents
Presence:-
Mr. V.D. Bisen, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1/Corporation.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of this writ petition, petitioners
pray for following reliefs:
"(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding and directing the respondents
not to show and treat the petitioners as outsource
employees and further respondents be directed to treat
the petitioners as direct employees of Uttarakhand
Warehousing Corporation.
(ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned order dated
28.06.2017 passed by respondent No.1.
(iii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding and directing the respondents
to regularize the services of the writ petitioners w.e.f.
the date from which the juniors to the writ petitioners
have been regularized and pay all the consequential
benefits along with interest as per modified seniority
list prepared in accordance with law."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the
petitioners were initially engaged by the Uttar
Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation as casual
clerks on daily wages on 18.06.2008 and
24.07.2000 respectively. The petitioners continued
as such with the Uttar Pradesh State Warehousing
Corporation. After its bifurcation and exercising
option, the petitioners are still continuing their
services as casual clerks with the Uttarakhand
Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as
Corporation) and are presently posted at Gadarpur
and Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
3. The petitioners continued their services as
daily wager employees with the respondent-
Corporation, therefore, they moved a representation
claiming their regularizations, but, the prayer of the
petitioners did not find favour with the respondent-
Corporation and the same was rejected.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the
petitioners' claim for regularization, petitioners have
filed a writ petition (S/S) No.219 of 2017, which
came to be decided by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 07.04.2017 giving a
direction to the Competent Authority to decide the
representation of the petitioners within a period of 8
weeks from the date of passing of order i.e.
07.04.2017 by passing a speaking/detailed order.
5. Thereafter, respondent No.1 rejected the
representation of the petitioners vide order dated
28.06.2017. The petitioners are now before this
Court challenging the said rejection order.
6. It is contended by the petitioners in the
writ petition that the order of rejection of the
representation is highly arbitrary and against the
law, as the representation was rejected by the
respondent No.1 saying that the Regularization
Rules of 2016, which were currently in force, has
been completely stayed by the order dated
24.01.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petitioner
(S/S) No.154 of 2017, and, therefore, the
regularization of the petitioners could not be done
and accordingly, the representation moved by the
petitioners, was rejected.
7. Respondent No.1/Corporation has filed
counter affidavit and in the said counter affidavit, it
has been specifically stated that since, the
Regularization Rules 2016 were stayed by this
Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No.154 of 2017, which
was allowed and Regularization Rules of 2016 was
quashed. It is further stated by the respondent-
Corporation in its counter affidavit that
Regularization Rules 2013, which were in force,
were stayed by this Court in another writ petition,
therefore, there was no regularization policy in force
at present, hence, the services of the petitioners
could not be regularized.
8. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by
the petitioners.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that while rejecting the representation of
the petitioners for regularization, the only ground
taken by the respondent-Corporation was non-
existence of the regularization policy inasmuch as
the Regularization Rules of 2016 were stayed. In
counter affidavit, it has been submitted by the
respondent-Corporation that Regularization Rules
of 2016 were quashed by the Division Bench of this
Court while allowing the Writ Petition (S/S) No.154
of 2017 and further, the Regularization Rules of
2013 were also stayed and therefore, there is no
regularization policy available to regularize the
service of the petitioners.
11. It is also submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioners that the writ petition in which
Regularization Rules of 2013 were stayed, has now
been finally decided vide judgment and order dated
22.02.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this
Court and resultantly, the Regularization Rules of
2013 (the Uttarakhand Regularization of Daily
Wager, Work Charge, Contract, Fixed Salary, Part-
time and Ad-hoc appointed employees Rules, 2013)
have been revived and are now in statute book. The
ground for denying the regularization to the
petitioners no longer exists, therefore, there would
be no hurdle for the respondent-corporation to
regularize the services of the petitioners under the
Regularization Rules of 2013.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners
strenuously argued that the petitioners have
rendered entire life in the service of the corporation
since 2008 and 2001 respectively, as daily wagers,
therefore, at this juncture, the respondent cannot
take a new plea, since, the post have been
earmarked for outsourcing, the services of the
petitioners cannot be regularized.
13. It is further submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioners that even after the bifurcation of
Uttar Pradesh Warehousing Corporation into the
Uttarakhand Warehousing Corporation, the services
of the petitioners were continued and they have
been continuously working with the Uttarakhand
Warehousing Corporation, even after the bifurcation
of the said Corporation.
14. A counter affidavit has been filed by the
respondent-Corporation, wherein, in addition to the
plea of the Regularization Rules of 2016, which was
the reason cited for the rejection of the
representation of the petitioner, this was also added
that even the Regularization Rules of 2013 have
been stayed and in the absence of regularization
policy, the petitioners cannot be regularized.
15. Since, after the decision of writ petition
No.616 of 2018(S/B) Narendra Singh and Another
Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others vide judgment
and order dated 22.02.2024, the Regularization
Rules of 2013 have come into existence and are
covering the field for regularization, there appears
to be no hurdle for regularizing the services of the
petitioners as Clerks with the respondent-
Corporation. The reasons which have been cited by
the respondent-Corporation is only the absence of
any regularization policy and now, in view of the
new development as stated above, the services of
the petitioners can very well be regularized invoking
the provisions of Regularization Rules of 2013.
16. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The
order dated 28.06.2017 is hereby quashed qua the
petitioners. A writ of mandamus is issued to
respondent No.1 commanding him to regularize the
services of the petitioners as Clerks with the
respondent-Corporation under the Regularization
Rules of 2013 as early as possible but not later than
six weeks' from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this order. No order as to costs.
17. Pending application(s), if any, stands
disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
14.03.2024
PN
