Uttarakhand High Court
9 February vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 19 February, 2025
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:1194-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Service Bench No. 254 of 2017
19 February, 2025
Umesh Chandola --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.
Deep Chandra Joshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State
of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4.
Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for
respondent No.3.
Coram: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. (Oral)
According to petitioner, he was appointed
as Veterinary Officer in Dr. Sushila Tiwari Forest
Hospital Trust against a sanctioned post, vide order
dated 04.06.2009. The said appointment was made
on a consolidated salary of Rs.17640/-. Dr. Sushila
Tiwari Forest Hospital Trust was taken over by the
State Government vide notification dated 30.04.2010
and it became Dr. Sushila Tiwari Government
Medical College, Haldwani. Petitioner is serving as
Veterinary Officer in the Government Medical College
ever since his appointment in 2009 without any
break whatsoever and his work and conduct is found
to be satisfactory.
2025:UHC:1194-DB
2. The grievance raised by the petitioner is
that his claim for regularization is not being
considered even though, he has completed nearly 16
years of service. By means of this writ petition,
petitioner has sought following reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to regularize
the services of the petitioner on the post of Veterinary
Officer as per regularization Rules issued by State
Government.
(ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to pay the
minimum salary to the petitioner for the post of
Veterinary Officer which is payable to the petitioner
as per rules with all the benefits which has given to
other veterinary officer who are working under the
control of the respondents."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
drawn attention of this Court to the Uttarakhand
Regularization of Daily Wager, Work Charge,
Contract, Fixed Salary, Part-time and Ad-hoc
appointed employees Rules, 2013, framed by the
State Government. According to said Rules, anyone
who has put in certain length of continuous
satisfactory service as ad-hoc, daily wager,
contractual employee etc. was entitled to be
considered for regularization.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the Regularization Rules of 2013 was amended
in 2016 and the cut-off date indicated in 2013 Rules
as 30.12.2008 was shifted to 30.12.2011, meaning
thereby, anyone who was appointed on or before
30.12.2011 was entitled to be considered for
regularization.
2025:UHC:1194-DB
5. Learned counsel for petitioner refers to a
judgment dated 22.02.2024 rendered by a Division
Bench of this Court in writ petition No.616 of 2018
(S/B) Narendra Singh and Another Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and Others, Operative portion of the said
judgment, on which reliance is placed by learned
counsel for petitioner, is extracted below:-
"5. Even if this argument of counsel for the
petitioners is taken into consideration today,
number of employees, who have been regularized
after giving 05 years of service, have now served for
almost 11 more years after 2013, and even if this
condition of 05 years is to be amended, the services
of those employees, who have already been
regularized as per the 2013 Rules, cannot be de-
regularized, as they have served for almost 14
years now.
6. In the present case, there was an interim
order of stay dated 04.12.2018, that no orders of
regularization will be passed by the State
Government, under the 2013 Rules. Hence, since
04.12.2018 no regularization orders have been
passed. All those persons, who have been
regularized as per the 2013 Rules before
04.12.2018, have worked for more than 13-14
years now. With respect to other candidates, who
have to be regularized now, they can be
regularized, as per the 2013 Rules, by taking into
consideration 10 years' service, instead of 05 years,
as of now.
7. Accordingly, the 2013 Rules are being
modified that, after 04.12.2018, 10 years' period
will be taken into consideration for regularization."
6. In view of the fact that petitioner has put in
more than 10 years of service as Veterinary Officer,
allegedly against a sanctioned post, the writ petition
is disposed of, with a direction to the State
Government to consider petitioner's claim for
regularization, as per the applicable Rules, by
constituting a Regularization Committee within three
2025:UHC:1194-DB
months from the date of production of certified copy
of this order. Petitioner shall be at liberty to make
representation claiming benefit of revision of salary in
terms of Government Order dated 16.01.2013, which
benefit reportedly was not given to him.
7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
19.02.2025
PN/-
