Uttarakhand High Court
Ajay Kumar And Others …Petitioners vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 6 January, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
2025:UHC:114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Writ Petition (SS) No. 436 of 2024
Ajay Kumar and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 2263 of 2023
Sanjay Kumar and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 2271 of 2023
Shyam Prakash and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 412 of 2024
Guddu and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
Vice Chancellor Govind Ballabh Pant University of
Agriculture and Technology and Others
...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 413 of 2024
Asha Rani Awasthi ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 414 of 2024
Ganga Ram and Others ...Petitioners
1
2025:UHC:114
Vs.
Vice Chancellor Govind Ballabh Pant University of
Agriculture and Technology and Others
...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 416 of 2024
Shishupal ...Petitioner
Vs.
Vice Chancellor Govind Ballabh Pant University of
Agriculture and Technology and Others
...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 420 of 2024
Manoj Kumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
Vice Chancellor Govind Ballabh Pant University of
Agriculture and Technology and Others
...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 437 of 2024
Liladhar Bhatt and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 438 of 2024
Anil Kannojia and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 439 of 2024
Manoj Kumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 440 of 2024
Bhawani Datt Paneru ...Petitioner
2
2025:UHC:114
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 441 of 2024
Dharamveer Singh and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 442 of 2024
Jageshwar and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 444 of 2024
Dayal Singh Bisht ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 447 of 2024
Manoj Joshi and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 448 of 2024
Ram Karan and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 451 of 2024
Ram Ji Shah and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
3
2025:UHC:114
Writ Petition (SS) No. 455 of 2024
Rakesh and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
Vice Chancellor Govind Ballabh Pant University of
Agriculture and Technology and Others
...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 554 of 2024
Chhatrapal and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 593 of 2024
Champa Prakash ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 594 of 2024
Mukesh Srivastava ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 637 of 2024
Mumtaj Ansari and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 945 of 2024
Manjoor Ali ...Petitioner
Vs.
Vice Chancellor Govind Ballabh Pant University of
Agriculture and Technology and Others
...Respondents
With
4
2025:UHC:114
Writ Petition (SS) No. 1097 of 2024
Anil Kumar Yadav and Another ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 1120 of 2024
Satyendra Mishra and Another ...Petitioners
Vs.
Vice Chancellor Govind Ballabh Pant University of
Agriculture and Technology and Others
...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 1129 of 2024
Mahesh Chandra Pandey and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
Vice Chancellor Govind Ballabh Pant University of
Agriculture and Technology and Others
...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 1332 of 2024
Uma Bhandari ...Petitioner
Vs.
Vice Chancellor Govind Ballabh Pant University of
Agriculture and Technology and Others
...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 1606 of 2024
Bhupendra Kumar and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
Vice Chancellor Govind Ballabh Pant University of
Agriculture and Technology and Others
...Respondents
Writ Petition (SS) No. 1613 of 2024
Nand Kumar and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
5
2025:UHC:114
Vice Chancellor and Others
...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 1738 of 2024
Amar Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
Vice Chancellor Govind Ballabh Pant University of
Agriculture and Technology and Others
...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 2446 of 2024
Chandra Shekhar ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
Presence:
1. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Mr. Harendra Belwal, learned counsel for the petitioners in the
connected writ petition.
3. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
4. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Shubhang Dobhal, learned counsel for the respondent.
5. Mr. Satyendra Lingwal, learned counsel for the University in
WPSS No. 2446 of 2024.
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. (Oral)
In all these writ petitions the issue as raised are
common. The grievance of the petitioners of all these bunch of
petitions the petitioners are working since last more than two
decades in the respondent-University, but their services have not
been regularized.
2. It is submitted that earlier these petitioners
approached to this court by way of bunch of writ petitions and all
these petitions were decided by the Coordinate Bench of this
court on 28.12.2023 and 08.011.2023. The respondent-University
6
2025:UHC:114
argued in the earlier round of litigation that these petitioners are
not in direct employment of the University and they have been
engaged through a contractor and there is no direct relationship of
master and servant between these petitioners and the University.
3. In response to this argument, one of the letter issued
by the Principal and Head of the University of Animal Anatomy
dated 09.01.2016 were placed in the earlier round of litigation,
wherein, it was mentioned that the petitioners were engaged as a
daily wager in the University w.e.f. 01.10.2001.
4. After taking into consideration the argument as
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned counsel for the University the Coordinate Bench of this
court on 08.11.2023 passed the following orderdirections to the
University:
“5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention
of this Court to a letter issued by Principal and Head of
Department, Animal Anatomy, on 09.01.2016, which
supports the stand taken by petitioner that he was engaged as
daily wage employee in the University w.e.f. 01.10.2001 and
further that his work & conduct was found to be satisfactory
all through this period.
6. Learned counsels for the University, however, submit
that petitioner was engaged through contractor and there was
no direct relationship of master and servant between petitioner
and the University. They further point out that since
01.05.2003, University is engaging casual workers only
through contractor/outsourcing.
7. Be that as it may, since petitioners have rendered
continuous satisfactory service for more than two decades in
the University, which is ‘State’ within meaning of the term
under Article 12 of the Constitution, the writ petitions are
disposed of with direction to Competent Authority in the
University to constitute a Selection Committee in terms of the
Rules applicable for regularization of University employees.
The Committee, so constituted, shall examine claim of all the
petitioners for regularization and pass appropriate orders, as
per law, within three months from the date of its constitution.
The Selection Committee shall bear in mind the law declared
by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 300 of
2018 “Ganga Datt Sharma vs. G.B. Pant University of
7
2025:UHC:114
Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar & others” decided on
21.08.2018, as affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP
No. 266 of 2020.”
5. Now, in compliance to the order passed by this court
dated 08.11.2023 by cyclostyle orders, which are impugned in
these petitions the claim of each of the petitioners has been
rejected and while rejecting their claim for regularization the
Joint Director observed in the order impugned dated 17.02.2024
that the petitioners were engaged through the contractor in the
University as per Government Order 01.05.2003 a policy has
been adopted to engage the employee through outsource.
6. It is also further observed in the order imgpuned that
there is no any relationship of master and servant in between the
petitioners and the University and therefore the petitioners’ claim
for regularization does not fall within the purview of
Regularization Rules of 2013. A further reference has been made
in the order impugned that by Government order dated
01.01.2019 the Regularization Rules of 2013 has been stayed. As
it appears from the impugned orders passed by the University in
respect of each of the petitioners no individual case has been
considered independently and in fact by a common order the
claim of each of the petitioners has been rejected.
7. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned senior counsel argued
that since the posts are not sanctioned and until and unless the
State Government sanctioned the posts, these petitioners cannot
be regularized; however, not a single document has been placed
before this court, whereby, the University at any point of time
requests to the Government for sanction of the post. This is also
undisputed fact that the judgment passed by the Coordinate
Bench dated 08.11.2023 was never been challenged by the
University and as on today that attains finality.
8
2025:UHC:114
8. As it appears from the judgment passed by the
Coordinate Bench the University was directed to constitute the
selection committee in terms of the Regularization Rules and
with the further direction that the Committee so constituted shall
examine the claim of regularization of each of the petitioners but
as it appears from the order impugned the claim of each of the
petitioners have not been considered independently, therefore, it
appears that in fact the directions issued by this court dated
08.11.2023 in bunch of petitions has not been strictly complied
with.
9. Apart from this, the argument as advanced by the
University in the previous round of litigation that there was no
direct relationship of master and servant between the petitioners
and the University has already been turned down by the
Coordinate Bench. It appears from the order impugned, which are
cyclostyle in nature on the same reasoning, which was rejected
by this court the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. As
observed earlier since the judgment passed by the Coordinate
Bench has not been challenged and that attains finality, therefore,
while rejecting the claim of the petitioner the respondent cannot
take plea that there was no relationship of master and servant
between the petitioner and the University, which itself reveals
that the claim of the petitioners have not been considered strictly
in the light of the direction issued by the Coordinate Bench of
this court.
10. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners
also informed to this court that so far as the Regularization Rules
is concerned, which was earlier stayed by the High Court is no
more in operation since the writ petition in which the
Regularization Rules of 2013 were under challenge subsequently
decided on 22.02.2024 in bunch of petitions, the leading one is
9
2025:UHC:114
WPSB No. 616 of 2018, whereby, the Division Bench of this
court make certain modification in the Regularization Rules.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed
reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others decided on 20.12.2024
SCC Online SC 3826. The various arguments have been
advanced in this case and the summary of the arguments as
advanced on behalf of the employees has been elaborated in
paragraph-8 of the judgment, which are being reproduced
hereinasunder:
“8. On behalf of the appellants, the following arguments have
been advanced before us:
(i). Continuous and Substantive Engagement: The
appellants emphasize their long, uninterrupted service
spanning well over a decade-and in some instances,
exceeding two decades. They argue that their duties were
neither sporadic nor project-based but permanent and integral
to the daily functioning of the respondent’s offices.
(ii). Nature of Duties: Their responsibilities- such as
cleaning, dusting, gardening, and other maintenance tasks-
were not casual or peripheral. Instead, they were central to
ensuring a clean, orderly, and functional work environment,
effectively aligning with roles typically associated with
regular posts.
(iii). Absence of Performance Issues: Throughout their
tenure, the appellants were never issued any warning or
adverse remarks. They highlight that their work was
consistently satisfactory, and there was no indication from the
respondents that their performance was not satisfactory or
required improvement.
(iv). Compliance with ‘Uma Devi’ Guidelines: The
appellants assert that their appointments were not “illegal” but
at most “irregular.” Drawing on the principles laid down in
Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi4, they submit
that long-serving employees in irregular appointments-who
fulfil essential, sanctioned functions-are entitled to
consideration for regularization.
(v). Discrimination in Regularization: The appellants point
out that individuals with fewer years of service or similar
engagements have been regularized. They contend that
denying them the same benefit, despite their longer service
10
2025:UHC:114
and crucial role, constitutes arbitrary and discriminatory
treatment.
(vi). Irrelevance of Educational Qualifications: The
appellants reject the respondents’ reliance on formal
educational requirements, noting that such criteria were never
enforced earlier and that the nature of their work does not
inherently demand formal schooling. They argue that
retrospectively imposing such qualifications is unjustified
given their proven capability over many years.
(vii). Equity and Fairness: Ultimately, the appellants submit
that the High Court erred by focusing too rigidly on their
initial terms of engagement and ignoring the substantive
reality of their long, integral service. They maintain that
fairness, equity, and established judicial principles call for
their regularization rather than abrupt termination.”
12. In paragraph-9 of the judgment the arguments as
advanced by the employer were also elaborated, which are also
being reproduced hereinasunder:
“9. On the other hand, the following primary arguments have
been advanced before us on behalf of the Respondents:
(i). Nature of Engagement: The respondents maintain that
the appellants were engaged purely on a part-time, contractual
basis, limited to a few hours a day, and that their work was
never intended to be permanent or full-time.
(ii). Absence of Sanctioned Posts: They assert that the
appellants were not appointed against any sanctioned posts.
According to the respondents, without sanctioned vacancies,
there can be no question of regularization or absorption into
the permanent workforce.
(iii). Non-Compliance with ‘Uma Devi’ Criteria: Relying
heavily on Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi
(supra), the respondents argue that the appellants do not meet
the conditions necessary for regularization. They emphasize
that merely serving a long period on a part-time or ad-hoc
basis does not create a right to be regularized.
(iv). Educational Qualifications: The respondents contend
that even if the appellants were to be considered for regular
appointments, they do not possess the minimum educational
qualifications mandated for regular recruitment. This, in their
view, disqualifies the appellants from being absorbed into
regular service.
(v). Outsourcing as a Legitimate Policy Decision: The
respondents point out that they have chosen to outsource the
relevant housekeeping and maintenance work to a private
11
2025:UHC:114
agency. This, they argue, is a legitimate administrative policy
decision aimed at improving efficiency and cannot be
interfered with by the courts.
(vi). No Fundamental Right to Regularization: Finally, the
respondents underscore that no employee, merely by virtue of
long-standing temporary or parttime engagement, acquires a
vested right to be regularized. They maintain that the
appellants’ claims are devoid of any legal entitlement and that
the High Court was correct in dismissing their petition.”
13. In paragraph-10 the arguments advanced by the
employee and the employer were discussed and the final
conclusion has been drawn in paragraph 27 and 28, which reads
as under:
“10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions
advanced and the material on record, we find that the
appellants’ long and uninterrupted service, for periods
extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside
merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or
contractual. The essence of their employment must be
considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the
integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence
suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious
route.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is
imperative for government departments to lead by example in
providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a
temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their
roles are integral to the organization’s functioning, not only
contravenes international labour standards but also exposes
the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee
morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government
institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation,
promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and
fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns
with international standards and sets a positive precedent for
the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the
overall betterment of labour practices in the country.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals
are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court
and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is
allowed to the following extent:
i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and
their services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants
shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for12
2025:UHC:114
the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to
continuity of services for the said period and the same would
be counted for their post-retiral benefits.”
14. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner
by referring the judgment submits that in view of the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court these petitions cannot be
denied regularization. Since the Coordinate Bench already
directed to the respondent-University to constitute the Committee
as per Rules for considering claim of the petitioners for their
regularization but in fact while deciding the claim of the
petitioners the respondents rejected their claim on the ground
which in fact was turned down by the Coordinate Bench.
15. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of
finally and the respondent-University is directed to consider the
claim of each of the petitioner independently by constituting the
Committee as directed by the Coordinate Bench in its judgment
dated 28.12.2023 and 08.11.2023 as per the Regularization Rules
afresh within ten weeks from the date of production of certified
copy of this order and if the University feels some difficulty due
to lack of vacancies the University is free to send the proposal to
the Government for creation of supernumerary post. Since the
State Government is also the party respondent here, therefore, the
State Government is also simultaneously directed that if they
receive any such proposal from the University for sanction of
posts they the State Government shall consider it to create and
sanction supernumerary post keeping in view of the fact that
these petitioners are working since last more than two decades in
the University.
16. Subject to the directions and observations as above,
all the impugned orders are quashed.
13
2025:UHC:114
17. It is also made clear that the Committee so
constituted by the University as per the direction by the
Coordinate Bench may also consider the judgment rendered by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India
and Others.
18. The issue of claim for equal pay for equal work
cannot be decided at this stage since the claim of the petitioner
for regularization were not considered by the University as per
the direction issued by the Coordinate Bench and it is open for
the petitioners to raise that issue at an appropriate stage.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
06.01.2025
PR
Digitally signed by POOJA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
POOJA 2.5.4.20=20de6817a968f6b259137535cd20a
e0aabc071792cf3b967c166f1f9777d2df9,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=C1F86C3C515DA418A38C7E1
A60389068B79D0D8CDF244993ED8CB408A
9121FC3, cn=POOJA
Date: 2025.01.12 11:45:25 +05’30’
14
