Dr. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. dismissed writ petitions by contract employees seeking regularization under 2011 Rules, noting failure to prove work on sanctioned posts. Court rejected claims after State order based on contract nature and lack of sanction proof.
Writ petitions failed and dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.1167 (S/S) of 2013
Shyam Singh Rana ……….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ………Respondents with Writ Petition No.1170 (S/S) of 2013
Mohan Singh Bargali & another ……….Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ………Respondents with Writ Petition No. 1169 (S/S) of 2013
Rajendra Singh Bisht ……….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ………Respondents with Writ Petition No.1168 (S/S) of 2013
Sanjeev Kumar Tripathi ……….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ………Respondents
Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate, present for the petitioners in all the writ petitions.
2
daily wage, work charge, contract, fixed salary, part time, their services are to be regularized. Since their services were not being regularized, they filed Writ Petition No.102 (SS) of 2012 and Writ Petition No.953 (SS) of 2012. During pendency of the writ petitions, it came to the light that after 2005-2007, petitioners were getting salary not by the department but through the service provider. These writ petitions were decided on 10.06.2013 with the following order:-
“Therefore, in case the petitioners were earlier working on sanctioned post though on a daily rate basis and that post is still in existence irrespective of the fact that during the intervening period the petitioners were actually engaged by service provider will not come in way of the petitioner’s regularization. The petitioners must satisfy first condition i.e. the post on which they have been working were in existence since at the time of their appointment and that they still continue to work on that post.
5. Since these facts are not available with the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Secretary, Watershed Management, Uttarakhand/respondent no.1 to decide the claim of the petitioners in the light of aforesaid within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.”
3
exist in the case of the petitioners. For this reason, their representations have been rejected. The petitioners even before this Court could not give any valid proof that they are working against a sanctioned/vacant post.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 22.03.2014
ML
2 issues framed by the court
Whether contract-based employees can claim regularization without proof of working on a sanctioned post.
Whether previous orders mandating regularization analysis remain effective when facts are unverified.
Shyam Singh Rana
Mohan Singh Bargali
Rajendra Singh Bisht
Sanjeev Kumar Tripathi
State of Uttarakhand
Sudhanshu Dhulia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
