Disposed

Amit Mewari v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC9 Feb 2026WPSB/134/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Teaching Personnel engaged on contractual basis at G.B. Pant University since 2005-06 sought regularization under the Regularization Rules of 2013 and restraint on a fresh selection advertisement. The University conceded no decision had been taken; the Court directed a speaking order within eight weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

Amit Mewari Vs State of Uttarakhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:UHC:701-DB

¶2

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 0 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 134 OF 2025

¶4

Dr. Amit Mewari …...Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Uttarakhand & others ….Respondents.

¶7

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel. Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 : Mr. S.S. Lingwal, learned counsel. JUDGMENT : ( per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

¶8

The petitioner is seeking regularization on the post of Assistant Professor/ Associate Professor and has also prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from proceeding any further with the selection pursuant to the advertisement No.A-28/ 2025 dated 27.01.2025.

¶9

The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as Teaching Personnel (Maths) in the Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Sciences of College of Basic Sciences and Humanities, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar during 2^nd Semester of the Academic Year 2005-06. Although, the engagement was purely on contractual basis for one academic session, but it was extended from time to time and he had worked for 16

¶10

¶11

2026:UHC:701-DB

¶12

years without any complaint.

¶13

In view of the above, the petitioner claims benefit of the Daily Wages, Work-Charge, Contract, Fixed Salary, Part time and Ad-Hoc Employees Regularization Rules, 2013 (for short hereinafter referred to as “the Regularization Rules of 2013”) , notified on 30.12.2013.

¶14

It is submitted that there-under five years’ requisite service as on 30.12.2013 has been duly completed by the petitioner and therefore, he was entitled for being considered for regularization. It is contended that the University had duly adopted the said Rules with certain modifications and had also applied it in the past in extending the benefit of regularization to various employees of the University, but qua the petitioner, no decision has been taken so far, while on the other hand, the regular vacancies of Assistant Professor/ Associate Professor were sought to be filled up in pursuance of the impugned advertisement dated 27.01.2025.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical facts and circumstances, a Division Bench in Writ Petition (S/B) No.47 of 2019, “Dr. Ritu Tripathi vs. State of Uttarakhand & others” , had directed the University to accord consideration to the claim of the employee for

¶16

¶17

2026:UHC:701-DB

¶18

regularization as per the Regularization Rules of 2013. He has also drawn our attention towards a communication dated 18.01.2016 by the Additional Chief Secretary, Uttarakhand Government to the Vice Chancellor, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology , Pantnagar, Udham Singh Nagar requesting him to accord consideration to the claim of such employees as per the notification dated 30.12.2013.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 5, i.e. the University, places reliance on the stand taken in the counter-affidavit to the effect that the engagement of the petitioner as a Teaching Personnel was only on hourly basis and accordingly, it is contended that he would not be covered by the Regularization Rules of 2013. He further contends that the petitioner has not worked continuously and there have been gaps in the working of the petitioner since after his initial engagement in the year 2005-06.

¶20

Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5, however, fairly concedes that so far no decision has been taken by the University, in writing, in respect of the claim of the petitioner. He states that the University would take the decision within such time as may be directed by this Court.

¶21

¶22

2026:UHC:701-DB

¶23

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the University to take a decision in respect of the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his service by means of a speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the instant order along with a fresh representation.

¶24