WPSS/1302/2024
2026 Latest Caselaw 2204 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPSS/1302/2024 on 20 March, 2026

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                            2026:UHC:1969
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                     COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               WPSS/1302/2024
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Ms. Ketki Chhaya Chaudhary and Mr. Abhishek Kandwal, Counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Ganesh Datt Kandpal, Additional AG, for the State.

(2) According to petitioner, he was engaged as a daily wager to discharge duties as Chowkidar in Construction Division, Public Works Department, Pauri in the year 1988. It is further his case that his services were terminated w.e.f. 24.9.1992, which was challenged by him before the Labour Court, Dehradun and learned Labour Court ultimately gave an award in favour of petitioner, holding that his termination is unjust and illegal and directed reinstatement of petitioner in service with back wages to the extent of 25 per cent. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the award rendered by the Labour Court was challenged by the employer before this Court and coordinate Bench, vide judgment dated 26.8.2014, dismissed the writ petition; employer thereafter filed SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court, which too was dismissed on 20.9.2021. Learned Counsel further submits that petitioner was, however, reinstated back in service on 21.7.2023. Learned Counsel submits that after the judgment rendered by the Labour Court, petitioner has to be deemed to be continuing in service throughout, therefore he is entitled to be considered for regularisation, as he has served since 1988. She further submits that in 2013, certain persons, who were appointed after petitioner's appointment on daily wages, were regularised, therefore petitioner is entitled to be regularised from the date his juniors were regularised. It is further 2026:UHC:1969

contended that no wages were paid to the petitioner from the date of award till petitioner's actual reinstatement in 2023, therefore direction should be issued to competent authority to pay him the unpaid wages.

(4) Learned State Counsel submits that petitioner's claim for unpaid wages is unsustainable, as petitioner has not discharged duties between the date of passing the award till his actual reinstatement. He further submits that even if it is held that petitioner is entitled to wages for the said period, then he has remedy to approach the Labour Court by filing application under Section 6H of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. He submits that as regards the other reliefs, petitioner can approach the competent authority by making representation.

(5) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner be permitted to make representation highlighting his grievances. (6) Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of granting liberty to petitioner to make representation highlighting his grievances. If he makes such representation within ten days from today, competent authority shall take decision thereupon, as per law, within eight weeks thereafter.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 20.3.2026 Pr

PRABODH Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,

KUMAR serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91 957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.03.20 18:14:31 +05'30' 2026:UHC:1969