Uttarakhand High Court
Govind Ballabh Pant University Of ... vs Subodh Kumar Sharma on 23 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:2948-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
HON'BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J
SPECIAL APPEAL No.868 of 2019
Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology,
Pantnagar
...Appellant
Versus
Subodh Kumar Sharma ...Respondent
With
SPECIAL APPEAL No.871 of 2019
Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology,
Pantnagar
...Appellant
Versus
Govind Chandra Pandey ...Respondent
With
SPECIAL APPEAL No.872 of 2019
Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology,
Pantnagar
...Appellant
Versus
Janardan Joshi ...Respondent
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, learned counsel.
Counsel for respondent Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel.
JUDGMENT :
(PER HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J)
The point raised by learned counsel for the
parties in all these special appeals is common, and hence
these special appeals are being decided by a common
order. However for the sake of brevity facts of Special
2025:UHC:2948-DB
Appeal No.868 of 2019 alone are being considered and
discussed.
2. This intra court appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 31.07.2019 passed by
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2501 of
2017. Operative portion of the impugned judgment is
reproduced below:-
"23. All the writ petitions are allowed. The
order dated 27.06.2017 is hereby quashed. A
mandamus is hereby issued to the respondent
authorities to now consider the regularization
of the petitioners treating them to be their
employees. Let a decision be taken on this
within a period of four weeks from the date a
certified copy of this order is received by the
appropriate authority of the University."
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
writ petitioners/respondent, herein, were engaged
through contractor for discharging the duties as "Group
D" employees in University. He further submits that
State Government has declared all "Group D" posts as
dying cadre, therefore, services of the writ
petitioners/respondents herein cannot be regularized.
4. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the
writ petitioners (respondents) contends that his clients
were engaged directly by the University in the year
2001, subsequently in 2003, an intermediary was
brought in to defeat the rightful claim of the writ
petitioners. He submits that intermediary/contractor
were changed from time to time, however, writ
petitioners have worked continuously in the University
2025:UHC:2948-DB
without any break whatsoever. He further submits that
the mere fact that writ petitioners have served in the
University continuously for 25 years reveals that the
work is of perennial in nature, therefore the University
cannot now contend that work or post is not available.
He also submits that State Government has framed
Rules for Regularization in the year 2013, and writ
petitioners fulfill the eligibility requirement for
regularization as per 2013 Rules. He further submits
that G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology,
has adopted the Regularization Rules of 2013, which
have been invoked for regularizing the service of the
employees of G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and
Technology. Thus, he submits that learned Single Judge
rightly allowed the writ petitions by directing the
authorities to consider the claim of writ petitioners for
regularization.
5. We find substance in the submission made by
learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners that
after serving for nearly 25 years in G. B. Pant University
of Agriculture and Technology without any interruption,
writ petitioners have earned a right to be considered for
regularization. It is not the case of appellant that work
or conduct of the respondents/writ petitioners is not
satisfactory or not upto the mark. The long continuous
service rendered by respondents leads to the only
inference that the work is perennial in nature, therefore,
the respondents cannot be denied their right to be
considered for regularization, which flows from statutory
rules framed by State Government. The decision to
declare Group D posts as Dying Cadre was taken in
2025:UHC:2948-DB
2013, by which time, respondents' right to be considered
was crystallised under the Regularisation Rules. Thus,
there is no scope for interference with the impugned
judgment. The special appeals fail and are dismissed.
6. The competent authority in the University shall
place the matter of the writ petitioners before the
Regularization Committee, if constituted. If
Regularization Committee is not constituted, the same
shall be constituted within ten days' from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order. The Committee
shall examine the claim of respondents for regularization
and pass necessary orders within 90 days' from today.
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J.
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
Dt:23rd April, 2025
NR/
