Disposed¶6

Mohd Yasin v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 Sept 2025WPSS/2019/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court WPSS/2019/2022, Manoj Kumar Tiwari J., decided 02.09.2025. Daily wager versus outsourced employee status dispute; Peon serving 27+ years in Rural Development Department, Rudrapur; Group D dying cadre Government Order 24.03.2011; outsourcing since 2013; regularisation; minimum of pay scale; Apex Court judgment reference; status dispute not adjudicable in writ petition; representation to competent authority; decision within four months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make a representation to the competent authority (within two weeks); the competent authority to decide his claim for minimum of pay scale and regularisation within four months thereafter. ¶6

SL.
No.

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPSS/2019/2022
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Ishwari Dutt Paliwal, Advocate for the
petitioner.

Mr.
N.S.
Pundir,
Deputy Advocate
General for the State.

1.
According to petitioner, he has served as
Peon in the office of Executive Engineer, Rural
Development Department, Rudrapur since 1998;
however, neither his claim for regularisation is

being considered nor he has been given
minimum of pay scale as per the judgment
rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court.
2.
Learned State Counsel, however, submits
that although petitioner was engaged as a daily
wager in 1998 for discharging duties as a Peon,
however, in view of the policy decision taken by
State Government to declare the cadre of Group
D employees as dying cadre vide Government
Order dated 24.03.2011, petitioner was engaged

through outsourcing w.e.f. 2013 and he is

thereafter serving as outsourced employee.

3.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner,

however, disputes the said statement made by

learned State Counsel and submits that the

contractor has been brought in for name sake
only and in fact there is a direct relationship of

master and servant between petitioner and the State Government. 4. Admittedly, petitioner has served for more
than 27 years in Rural Development
Department. The only question is whether he is
serving as outsourced employee, as contended
by learned State Counsel or as a daily wager,
who is directly paid wages by the department.
5. Since there is a dispute regarding status of
the petitioner, which cannot be gone in a writ
petition, therefore, this Court thinks that ends of
justice would be met if competent authority in
the department is asked to examine petitioner’s
claim for minimum of pay scale and
regularisation.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed
of by permitting petitioner to make
representation. If he makes representation to the
competent authority within two weeks from
today, decision thereupon shall be taken within
four months thereafter.
7. Pending application(s), if any, stand
disposed of. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 02.09.2025 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a 92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D3 05B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.09.05 12:55:06 +05'30'

master and servant between petitioner and the
State Government.
4.
Admittedly, petitioner has served for more

than
27
years
in
Rural
Development

Department. The only question is whether he is

serving as outsourced employee, as contended

by learned State Counsel or as a daily wager,

who is directly paid wages by the department.

5.
Since there is a dispute regarding status of

the petitioner, which cannot be gone in a writ

petition, therefore, this Court thinks that ends of

justice would be met if competent authority in

the department is asked to examine petitioner’s

claim
for
minimum
of
pay
scale
and

regularisation.

6.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed

of
by
permitting
petitioner
to
make

representation. If he makes representation to the

competent authority within two weeks from

today, decision thereupon shall be taken within

four months thereafter.

7.
Pending application(s), if any, stand

disposed of.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
02.09.2025
Mahinder/
MAHINDER
SINGH
Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a
92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D3
05B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2025.09.05 12:55:06 +05'30'

Mohd Yasin v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Yasin v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naseem Ahmad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Manoj Singh Bisht Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shamsheeda Bano Vs State of Uttarakhand

Upendra Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Anand Mani Vs State of Uttarakhand

Anil Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand