[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/3669/2017 on 27 March, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2026:UHC:2218
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSS/3669/2017
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bora, Advocate,
holding brief of Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Additional
Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand /
respondents.
3. Petitioner was engaged as Peon in Census
Department at Pithoragarh on 13.6.2000. His
engagement was discontinued w.e.f.
31.5.2001. Petitioner made representation for
regularisation of his services. His representation
has been rejected by District Magistrate, vide
order dated 31.8.2017, which is under
challenge in this writ petition. The reason
assigned for rejecting petitioner's claim is that
temporary employees appointed in Census
Department in the year 2000 have not been
declared as retrenched employee. Another
reason, which has been given for rejecting
petitioner's claim is that the cadre of Group-D
employee has been declared as dying cadre by
the State Government, vide Government Order
dated 24.03.2011. Petitioner has challenged the
said order in this writ petition.
4. This Court do not find any reason to
interfere with the rejection order. Admittedly,
petitioner was engaged for a few months for
discharging duties in census operation and in
2026:UHC:2218
the absence of any Rule or Government Order
providing for regularisation of such employees,
who were engaged during census operation,
petitioner does not have any vested right of
regularisation. Persons serving in State
departments, who are declared to be
retrenched, after discontinuance of their
engagement, alone are entitled to be absorbed
in other departments of the State Government.
No such declaration was issued in favour of the
petitioner, therefore, they were not entitled to
be absorbed in any State department.
5. Even otherwise also, petitioner was
engaged as Group-D employee in Census
Department. In 2011 State Government has
decided not to make any appointment on
Group-D post, therefore, in such view of the
matter also, petitioner does not have any
vested right to be appointed/absorbed on the
post of Peon.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers
to a document contained at page no. 50 of the
writ petition and submits that petitioner's claim
was recommended for absorption on a Group-D
post.
7. Learned State Counsel is right in
submitting that recommendation made in favour
of the petitioner does not create any vested
right of absorption. Absorption is governed by
statutory rules and one who fulfils the condition
of those rules, alone can be absorbed on an
equivalent post.
2026:UHC:2218
8. Since petitioner does not meet the
requirement of Absorption Rules, 1991,
therefore, there cannot be any direction to
absorb the petitioner on a Group-D post. Even
otherwise also, the Group-D post is no more in
existence in State Departments. Thus, there is
no scope for interference with the impugned
order.
9. The writ petition is, however, disposed of
by permitting petitioner to make representation
for his re-engagement in any State Department.
If he makes such representation within two
weeks, District Magistrate shall consider his
claim and pass appropriate order, as per law,
within six weeks thereafter.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
27.03.2026
Navin
NAVEEN Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
CHANDRA
serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86
DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA
Date: 2026.03.27 18:01:07 +05'30'
