Vinay Yadav vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Alok Kumar Verma, J

The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to regularize services of Petitioner on the post occupied by him and pay all consequential benefits from the date similarly placed persons were given benefit of regularization.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay minimum of pay scale with dearness allowance to the Petitioner along with arrears accrued thereon unless Petitioner is given regular status.

iii. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv. Award cost of the Petition to the present Petitioner.”

Heard Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3.

Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate, submitted that the present matter falls under the provisions of the Uttarakhand Regularization of Services of Employees Appointed as Daily Wager, Work-Charged, Contract, Part-time and Ad-hoc, Rules, 2013 (in short, “Rules, 2013”).

The said submission of Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate has not been disputed by the respondents.

On the request of learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing the Managing Director, Uttarakhand Agriculture Produce Marketing Board, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, the respondent no.2, to consider the case of the petitioner in pursuant to the Annexure No.6 dated 07.08.2018 to the writ petition and in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, 2013 as expeditiously as possible, but, not later than six weeks’ from today.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.