Uttarakhand High Court
Shivraj Singh Rawat vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 2 May, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No.2011 of 2017
Shivraj Singh Rawat ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Presence:-
Mr. B.S. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Narayan Dutt, learned Standing Counsel for the
State of Uttarakhand/respondents.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has
sought the indulgence of this Court for quashing the
order dated 15.09.2016 (Annexure No.14 to the writ
petition), and further to direct the respondents to
consider his case for regularization.
2. The brief facts of the case are that since
23.07.2005, petitioner is discharging his duties as
JCB/Robot Operator/Driver in PWD Division,
Gopeshwar. It is the case of petitioner that he made a
request for giving him appointment on daily wage basis
on 06.05.2008. The petitioner has been moving
representation since long seeking regularization but of no
result. Earlier, he preferred WPSS No.725 of 2013 which
was decided on 27.06.2013 permitting petitioner to move
a representation and respondent no.3 was directed to
decide the same, however, the said representation was
decided in negative by order dated 15.09.2016. Hence
this petition.
3. It is contended by the petitioner 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.3 in
violation of Regularization Rules of 2013.
4. Respondent-Department has filed its counter
affidavit denying the case of petitioner on the ground that
he was not directly appointed but he was appointed
through a Contractor.
5. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the
petitioner.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
stated that the status of the petitioner at the time of
promulgation of Regularization Rules of 2013 would be
relevant for the purpose of regularization.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
Corporation strongly supported the contention raised in
the counter affidavit.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and especially, in view of new fact that the Regularization
Rules of 2013, namely, Uttarakhand Regularization of
Daily Wager, Work Charge, Contract, Fixed Salary, Part-
time and Ad-hoc appointed employees Rules, 2013,
challenged in Writ Petition No.616 of 2018(S/B),
Narendra Singh and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand
and Others, have now been revived, as 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 are in the statute book, the services of the petitioner
can be regularized under Regularization Rules of 2013.
The respondent cannot take other plea to deprive the
petitioner of its right to claim regularization of his
services as a JCB/Robot Operator/Driver with the
respondent-Department, as he has been rendering
service continuously since 2005. Mere challenging the
nomenclature is nothing but a camouflage to deprive the
petitioner his rightful claim. Therefore, it appears to this
Court that there is no hurdle to regularize the services of
the petitioner with the respondent-Department keeping in
view the long service rendered as a daily wager and his
entire youth and life spent in the services of the
respondent-Department.
10. The argument raised by learned State Counsel
that the petitioner was not working 10 years continuously
prior to the date of promulgation of Rules, is of no
relevance. The Rules for regularization were brought by
the State in the year 2013, whereby, the minimum
service limit was prescribed as 05 years which was later
on increased to 10 years in terms of the judgment passed
by the Division Bench. The petitioner is working in the
Department since 2005 and there is no hurdle now to
regularize his services as per the Rules of 2013.
11. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The
rejection order dated 15.09.2016 (Annexure No.14 to the
writ petition) is hereby quashed. A writ of mandamus is
issued commanding the respondent-State to regularize
the services of the petitioner 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.
12. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed
of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
02.05.2024
Rdang
