Kaushlya Devi & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioners have sought the indulgence of this Court for a direction to the respondent nos.2 & 3 to regularize the petitioners on the post of Rasoiya on which they have been working for more than ten years against the sanctioned and vacant post.

It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner no.1 was engaged as Kaahar on 24.08.1998 and petitioner no.2 was engaged on the said post on 16.12.1998. Petitioners have been working on the said positions regularly since the date of their appointment. It is relevant to note that Petitioner no.1 has now retired after attaining the age of superannuation in the month of May, 2023.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have put in almost 26 years service against the said vacant and sanctioned post, therefore, they are eligible for regularization on the post of Rasoiya as stated by them in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to this fact that a similarly situated woman candidate has already been regularized by the respondent-department vide order dated 22.07.2019 w.e.f. 2016, but the petitioners’ claim for regularization has completely been ignored by the respondent-department. It is only for inaction on the part of respondents, petitioners have moved this Court by filing the present writ petition.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the State and in that counter affidavit, it is admitted that petitioners have been engaged by the respondent-department on the post of Kaahar (domestic chores, water carrier/bearer) on a fixed monthly salary of Rs.450/- in Rajkeey Balika Ashram Paddhati Vidhyalay, Bageshwar, but the ineligibility which has been shown for regularization of the petitioners was only this much that the Daily Wages, Work-Charge, Fixed Pay Scale, Part Time and Ad-hoc Employees Regularization Rules, 2013 (for short “Regularization Rules, 2013” ) was stayed by this Court.

Since the controversy with regard to the Regularization Rules, 2013 has been cleared by the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the writ petition bearing WPSB No.616 of 2018 (Narendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand) vide order dated 22.02.202, therefore, there is no inability with the respondents now to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization.

Having considered the rival contentions and having gone through the record of the case, it is provided that the petitioners shall move fresh representation(s) to the respondent no.2 within a period of 15 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Thereafter, respondent no.2 shall decide the said representation(s) of the petitioners for regularization within a period of six weeks after receipt of the said representation(s) by reasoned and speaking order, keeping in view this fact that the Regularization Rules, 2013 are invoked and the claim of the petitioners can be considered under those Rules. This fact is also to be borne in mind that petitioner no.1 has already retired after attaining the age of superannuation and a separate order may be passed in her favour regarding the consequential benefits.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed-off finally.