Naresh Chandra Joshi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 5836 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Naresh Chandra Joshi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 28 November, 2025

                                                            2025:UHC:10684



 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

         Writ Petition (Service Single) 599 of 2016


Naresh Chandra Joshi                                     -------Petitioner

                                  Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others

                                                 -----------Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Naveen Chandra Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the
State/respondents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Judgment
                          Dated : 28.11.2025

Hon'ble Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J.

By means of this Writ Petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to revise the structure of the government Medical College, Haldwani sanctioned vide Notification dated 21st September, 2015, to be in terms of Minimum Standard Requirement for Medical College Regulations, 1999.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take decision for regularization of the services of the petitioner in Govt.

Medical College, Haldwani in terms of the provisions of Regularization Rules, 2013 as the recommendation in favour of the petitioner has already been made by the Govt. Medical College, Haldwani as well as the Director, Medical Education, Uttarakhand."

2025:UHC:10684

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 1995, the Uttaranchal Forest Hospital Trust was established in Haldwani and in the 35th and 36th Board meeting of the Management Committee, a decision was taken to create various posts and in pursuance thereto, an advertisement was issued on 03.03.2006, for various posts including two posts of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) on fixed honorarium of Rs. 4500/- per month; that the petitioner applied for the said post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) and after due selection he was appointed on 23.03.2006 and he joined as Physical Training Instructor (PTI) on 03.04.2006; that the Uttaranchal Forest Hospital Trust which was registered under the Societies Registration Act was dissolved and on the basis of Notification dated 30.04.2010, the Uttaranchal Forest Hospital Trust was provincialised, w.e.f., 01.05.2010 and it was decided that all the properties, rights, liabilities, institutes, employees and work will stand transferred to the Department of Medial Education on "as is where is"

basis; that it was further provided that all the liabilities and powers of the society will vest/transferred to the State Government. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was asked to enter into an agreement with the Government Medical College, Haldwani and the services of the petitioner continued on contract basis on the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) on year to year basis and the petitioner is continuing, as such, on the said post since 2006.

3. The petitioner claims the regularization under

2025:UHC:10684 the "Daily Wager, Work Charged, Contract, Consolidated Salary, Part Time and Ad-hoc Appointees Regularization of Services Rules, 2013". It is the case of the petitioner that the list of 180 employees who were serving on contract basis was supplied by the Hospital to the State Government for considering their case for regularization and the petitioner was included in the list of 180 employees, however, the respondents did not considered the case of the petitioner for regularization.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was earlier working in the Uttaranchal Forest Hospital Haldwani, which was run by the Trust and the same was provincialised on 01.05.2010 and as the petitioner had not completed 5 years of services from 01.05.2010 till the date of promulgation of the regularsation Rules 2013, as such, his case cannot be considered for regularization. It is further submitted that as no post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) was sanctioned as per the structure notified on 21.09.2015, as such, in absence of the said post, case of the petitioner cannot be considered for regularization.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the said submission of the learned Standing Counsel, submits that the petitioner is discharging the duties since 2006 and his services were transferred to the State on "as is where is" basis on the date when the trust was provincialised, as such, his past services cannot be discarded. He also referred to the order

2025:UHC:10684 dated 27.05.2016 passed by the Principal Secretary, Medical Education, whereby the services of the petitioner which came to an end on 02.04.2016 was extended till further order on the post of Physical Training Inspector (PTI). He also referred to the communication sent by the Principal, Government Medical College, Haldwani for sanction of the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) whereby in pursuance thereto, the Director of Medical Education issued a Communication to the Secretary, Medical Education on 28.01.2017 for sanctioning the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) at Govt. Medical College, Haldwani.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court towards the Government Order dated 02.01.2024 and 02.08.2024, by which, the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) has been sanctioned by the Government in Medical College, Haridwar and Pithoragarh and, as such, he submits that the petitioner cannot be discriminated, vis-à-vis, other employees working as Physical Training Instructor (PTI) in other medical colleges.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner is in service since 3rd April, 2006 and has completed more than 19 years of service on contract basis. The Regularization Rules of 2013 were put to challenge in Writ Petition (S/B) 616 of 2018 and other connected writ petitions before this Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court while disposing of

2025:UHC:10684 the Writ Petition passed the following Order:

"This order shall dispose of above mentioned 05 cases, as common questions of facts and law are involved in them.

2. The short question for consideration in these cases is that, after making the Rules of Regularization in the year 2011, the State of Uttarakhand had regularized all those employees, who had completed 10 years of service. However, subsequently, Rules were made on

31.12.2013 for regularizing those employees, who were not covered as per the Rules of 2011, and these Rules were made, keeping in view the fact that the State of Uttarakhand came into being on 09.11.2000, and many departments came into being after 2000, and there were number of employees, who could not complete 10 years of service, when 2011 Rules were framed, and they could not be regularized. Being a beneficial legislation, the State of Uttarakhand came up with the Rules of 2013, and reduced the period of regularization from 10 years to 05 years.

3. The grievance of the petitioners in this batch of cases is that the period of 10 years could not have been reduced to 05 years.

4. Since the present case is a special case, where the State was not in existence before 2000, 10 years' period could not be completed by number of employees, as per the 2011 Rules, once the State came into being on 09.11.2000. Hence, in order to accommodate those employees, this Policy of 31.12.2013 was made. The grievance of the petitioners is only that, by creating the Rules of 2013, the State of Uttarakhand has reduced the period to 05 years, rather than restricting it to 10 years.

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

2025:UHC:10684 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.

8. In view of the above, all the above mentioned Writ Petitions/ Special Appeals are disposed of.

9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly."

8. The Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner for regularization is as such liable to be considered under the 2013 Rules, as the petitioner has completed more than 19 years of service. Submission of learned counsel for the respondent-State that the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) is not sanctioned, as such, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for regularization, is bereft of merit. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dharam Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1735 while considering the case of employees seeking regularization, has held in para 17 to 20 as under:

"17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long- term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on

2025:UHC:10684 lawful lines.

18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-hocism"

thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.

19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularizations, we issue the following directions:

i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last- drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above. ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the

2025:UHC:10684 regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment.

iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgment.

iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement. v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgment.

20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling "reconsiderations," and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and

2025:UHC:10684 implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India."

9. In view of the above discussions, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization under the 2013 Rules within a period of 8 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

10. With the above observations, the writ Petition is disposed of.

(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)

Dated: 28.11.2025 Kaushal