Uttarakhand High Court
Executive Officer vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 16 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:5004-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
16th June, 2025
Special Appeal No. 243 of 2017
Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur and another
------- Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others -----Respondents
With
Special Appeal No. 114 of 2017
Rajan Kumar and others ------- Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others -----Respondents
With
Special Appeal No. 220 of 2017
Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur and others
------- Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others -----Respondents
With
Special Appeal No. 222 of 2017
Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur and another
------- Appellants
1
2025:UHC:5004-DB
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others -----Respondents
With
Special Appeal No. 237 of 2017
Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur and another
------- Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others -----Respondents
And
Special Appeal No. 241 of 2017
Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur and another
------- Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others -----Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Harendra Belwal, learned counsel for the appellants in SPA No. 220
of2017, SPA No. 222 of 2017, SPA No. 237 of 2017, SPA No. 241o of
2017 and SPA No. 243 of 2017.
Mr. Dharmendra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Harendra
Belwal, learned counsel for the private respondent in SPA No. 114 of
2017.
Mr. K.N.Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the private respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT:
(per Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
Since common questions of law and facts are
involved in these six Special Appeals, which have been filed
challenging the common Judgment and order dated
20.02.2017, passed by learned Single Judge, therefore, they
are heard together and are being decided together. However,
2025:UHC:5004-DB
for the sake of brevity, facts of Special Appeal No. 243 of 2017
alone are being considered and discussed.
2. These intra court appeals filed by the State are
directed against judgment and order dated 20.02.2017,
rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S)
No.1112 of 2016, Umesh Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand and
others. By the judgment under challenge, learned Single
Judge has decided five writ petitions filed by Safai
Karmcharies serving on contract in Nagar Palika Parishad,
Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar whereby Nagar Palika
Parishad was directed to complete the exercise of
regularization within eight weeks with a further direction that
if regularisation is made, seniority of the writ petitioners shall
be calculated after considering the continuity of service of the
petitioners. The operative portion of impugned judgment is
reproduced below:
"7. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petitions succeed. A
mandamus is hereby issued to the respondents to complete the
entire exercise for regularization as expeditiously as possible,
but definitely within a period of eight weeks from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order. In case
regularization is to be made, the seniority of the petitioners has
to be calculated in accordance with law after considering the
continuity of the services of the petitioners."
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the writ petitioners (respondents herein) were engaged
through Mohalla Swachhta Samiti, which were constituted in
terms of letter issued by Director, Urban Development on
08.07.2003 and not by the Nagar Palika, therefore, Safai
Karmcharies engaged through Mohalla Swachhta Samiti are
not entitled for regularisation in the establishment of Nagar
Palika, Jaspur.
2025:UHC:5004-DB
4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners
(respondents herein) per contra submits that the writ
petitioners were engaged as Safai Karmchari on contract
directly by Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur, w.e.f. 01.03.2001
and they are continuously serving as such ever since then. He
further submits that although Director, Urban Development,
issued a letter on 08.07.2003 (Annexure No.CA1) to Counter
Affidavit, filed by Nagar Palika Parishad, however, fresh
appointment letters were never issued to writ petitioners
(respondents herein) after 08.07.2003 and they continued to
receive salary directly from Nagar Palika Parishad which was
credited to their saving bank accounts. He further submits
that even after creation of the Mohalla Swachhta Samiti,
status of the writ petitioners did not undergo any change. He
refers to the Director's letter dated 08.07.2003, wherein it is
mentioned that Mohalla Swachhta Samiti are created to
reduce the financial burden upon the Urban Local Bodies, for
contending that these Samiti are sham which were envisioned
as a tool to deprive the Safai Karmcharis of their service
benefits.
5. Learned counsel for writ petitioners further
submits that Nagar Palika Parishad has regularized other
Safai Karmcharies who were engaged on contract in the year
2009 by ignoring claim of the writ petitioners who were
appointed in the year 2001. He further submits that in the
proposal dated 20.08.2015 sent by Executive Officer, Nagar
Palika Parishad to District Magistrate, regarding
regularization, name of nine safai karmcharies were
mentioned and they all were appointed in 2009. Thus, he
submits that writ petitioners were discriminated against, in
as much as even after having been appointed in 2001, their
2025:UHC:5004-DB
claim for regularisation was overlooked. He further submits
that the writ petitioners have served for more than 24 years
but they are yet to be regularized. Learned counsel for
respondents further submits that in the regularization order
dated 17.12.2016, aforesaid nine persons who were
regularized were shown to be working since 2003 which casts
doubt on the entire exercise undertaken by the Nagar Palika.
6. Learned Single Judge has considered and
discussed all relevant aspects and held that claim of writ
petitioners cannot be denied by taking specious plea that that
they were engaged through Mohalla Swacchta Samiti, as they
were paid wages by the Nagar Palika and they are performing
statutory duty of the Nagar Palika.
7. We do not find any scope of interference with the
direction issued to consider case of writ petitioners for
regularisation, and the competent authority will complete the
exercises within 8 weeks from date of presentation of certified
copy of this judgment, before him. However, their seniority
shall be governed by applicable Rules and the direction
issued on said aspect stands modified to the extent indicated
above.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.)
Dated: 16.06.2025
Kaushal
