Ashutosh Malasi & others vs State of Uttarakhand & Others

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

This is a bunch of five Writ Petitions in which the petitioners are almost claiming an identical relief to the following effect:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner

on the post held by him in accordance.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to pay the minimum of pay scale to the

petitioner of the post held by him until the service of the petitioner are regularized.

(iii) Issue any writ, rule, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award cost to the petitioner.â€​

The petitioners’ case in short is that they have been engaged as Lab Technician with respondent no. 3 as back as on 12.08.2010 and ever since

then they are rendering their services without any break. The appointment thus made of the petitioners on 12.08.2010 was on a consolidated salary of

Rs. 9,000/- per month, however their claim for the grant of regular salary is not being considered, though according to the petitioner they have

satisfactorily rendered their service with the respondent.

As per the nature of appointment letter, which has been annexed as Annexure-1 & 2 to the Writ Petition, the appointment has been made on

temporary basis. The grievance of the petitioners is that as they are rendering equivalent service as that which is being rendered by regular employee

and coupled with the fact that since they also hold same qualification which is required for a regular appointment of Lab Technician, they were entitled

to be paid with minimum of wages in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “State of Punjab & Other

vs. Jagjit Singh & Others’.

The contention of the petitioner is further that since they have consistently worked regularly since their respective date of appointment and being

paid only consolidated salary, a sense of deprivation is prevailing because the respondent employer in a welfare ought to function as a model employer

and they should have remunerated the petitioner looking to the services rendered by them, which according to the petitioners is equivalent to the other

identically placed regular employees.

The petitioners further prayed for that their services may be regularized under the provisions of the Regularization Rules of 2013. On the aforesaid

premise when their claim was not being considered for the grant of minimum pay scale as well as for regularization, the petitioners have submitted in

their pleading that they have filed a representation before the respondent no. 4 claiming for minimum pay scale as well as for regularization which is

pending consideration.

The reliefs as sought for by the petitioners is opposed by the Standing Counsel by submitting that the case of the petitioners would not be covered

under the Regularization Rules of 2013 as they have no lien as per terms of appointment which they have accepted and would bind them and they

cannot be placed on a common pedestal as compared to those employees on whom the rules of 2013 made applicable. This aspect is yet to be decided

by respondent no. 4 while taking into consideration the representation which has been submitted by the petitioners because for determining right of

regularization, as well as for grant of minimum pay scale in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Jagjit Singh’s case,

various factual aspects are required to be gone into and scrutinized by respondent no. 4, before the claim of the petitioner submitted by way of a

representation is still to be taken into consideration. This Court cannot sit in appeal and appreciate the evidences for the purposes of grant of benefits

under the Rules of 2013 as claimed by the petitioners

In that view of the matter all these Writ Petitions are disposed of with the direction to respondent no. 4 to decide the representation submitted by

the petitioners annexed as Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition within a period of six weeks from the date of service of the order and after providing an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

However, it is made clear that at this stage this Court has not expressed any opinion pertaining to the merits of the claim of the petitioners. The

representation of the petitioners is to be decided independently in accordance with law.

Subject to the above observations, these Writ Petitions would stand disposed of.