Disposed¶24

Vivek Mashih v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC1 Apr 2026SPA/30/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Appeal No. 30 of 2026; Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital; intra-court appeal; UPNL contractual/out-sourced employees; regularization claim; Kundan Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, WPPIL No. 116 of 2018; Regularization Rules amended 05.12.2025; representation to Secretary, Finance; artificial break in service ignored; Data Entry Operator, Trade Tax, Rudrapur; interim order parity grievance; no interference with Single Judge order; appeal disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of; liberty to the appellant/petitioner to make representation within a further period of two weeks, to be decided by the State strictly in accordance with the learned Single Judge's order; pending application, if any, also disposed of. ¶24

Vivek Mashih Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the intra-court appeal disclosed any good ground to interfere with the learned Single Judge's order, in view of the appellant's grievance that an interim order passed in other connected petitions was denied to him.

¶18

Court's answer

The learned Single Judge had already protected the appellant's interest by providing that his services shall not be discontinued and that the artificial break shall be ignored.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

This Court found no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶23

Key takeaways

It was left open to the petitioner/appellant to make representation in terms of the Single Judge's order within a further period of two weeks from the date of this order, if not already made, and the State shall decide the same strictly in accordance with the order of the learned Single Judge.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Intra-court Special Appeal against the learned Single Judge's order dated 11.12.2025 in Writ petition(S/S) No. 882 of 2025 (and connected petitions), filed by a UPNL-engaged contractual employee (Data Entry Operator, office of Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, Division-1, Rudrapur) aggrieved that an interim order passed in other connected petitions had been denied to him. The Single Judge, taking note of Kundan Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand (WPPIL No. 116 of 2018) and the State's stand that claims must be considered under the Regularization Rules as amended on 05.12.2025, had disposed of the writ petition with liberty to make representation to Secretary, Finance, protecting the petitioner from discontinuation of services and ignoring the artificial break. The Division Bench (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J., with Subhash Upadhyay, J.) held that the appellant's interest stood already protected and found no good ground to interfere; it allowed a further two weeks for making the representation, to be decided by the State strictly in accordance with the Single Judge's order. Appeal disposed of.

¶1

2026:UHC:2326-DB

¶2

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND

¶4

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY 1^st April, 2026

¶5

Special Appeal No. 30 of 2026

¶6

Vivek Mashih ------Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Uttarakhand & others -----Respondents

¶9

Presence:-

¶10

Mr. Bhavya Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sanpreet Azmani, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶11

Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents no. 1 to 3. Mr.Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

¶12

JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

¶13

The present intra court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 11.12.2025 in Writ petition(S/S) No. 882 of 2025 and other connected writ petitions, wherein the contractual employees engaged through UPNL have essentially challenged the orders dispensing with their services on the ground that the services were not required any further.

¶14

The appellant was working as Data Entry Operator in the office of Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, Division-1, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The appellant relied on the judgment of this Court

¶15

¶16

2026:UHC:2326-DB

¶17

passed in WPPIL No. 116 of 2018 , Kundan Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand & others , wherein this Court had issued directions to the State to frame scheme for regularization of contractual employees and to pay minimum of the pay scale to them. The learned Single Judge has duly taken into consideration the said judgment and also the stand of the State that the claim of the appellant for regularization and other benefits has to be considered in accordance with the Regularization Rules amended on 05.12.2025. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the plea of the petitioner that the Regularization Rules does not contemplate regularization of out-sourced employees. Thereafter, taking note of the judgment of the Division Bench, the writ petition has been disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make representation to Secretary, Finance within two weeks with further direction to the State to decide the same. The interest of the appellant/petitioner has been protected by providing that the services of the petitioner shall not be discontinued and artificial break given shall be ignored.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in other petitions, an interim order has been passed, whereas the same has been denied to the

2026:UHC:2326-DB

appellant.

As noted, the learned Single Judge has already protected the interest of the appellant by providing that his services shall not be discontinued and that artificial break shall be ignored.

¶23

Accordingly, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. It is left open to the petitioner/appellant to make representation in terms of the order of learned Single Judge within a further period of two weeks from today, if not already made, and the same shall be decided by the State, strictly in accordance with order of learned Single Judge.

¶24