Vinod Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

The petitioner in this writ petition has sought the following reliefs:-

“I. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in pursuance of

prevailing Regularization Rules 2013 and until his regularization petitioner may be paid minimum pay scale for the post held by him.

II. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

III. Award cost of the petition.â€​

The contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled to be considered and granted the benefit of regularization in view of the provisions contained

under Rule 4 Sub Rule (2) of the Regularization Rules of 2013, which provides as under:-

**fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 04 ds mifu;e 02 esa mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd mifu;e 01 esa lanfHkZr ,slh fu;qfDr ds le; fjDr@Lohd`r in ds fo:} fu;qDr fd;k x;k gks]

vkSj fu;qfDr ds le; ij in gsrq izpfyr lsok fu;eksa esa fu/kkZfjr 'kSf{kd ,oa vU; ;ksX;rk;sa vk;q lEcU/kh fu;e iw.kZ djrk gksA**

Â

The factual backdrop under which the writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner, is that he contends that he is post graduate and resident of

this State, he possesses requisite qualification to be appointed on the post of Computer Operator, his case is further he was engaged on a daily wage

basis as Computer Operator with respondent no.4 with effect from 2005. Since petitioner having rendered a considerable length of service, he raised

his claim before the Executive Engineer for regularization on 25.07.2015, praying for that since he is having a requisite qualification as required to be

held by a Computer Typist/Junior Assistant Group-C Employee under the rules and couple with the fact that he has worked identically and discharged

equal service as regular incumbent since 2005. There have been nothing adverse found against him. He ought to be considered for regularization. The

said representation of the petitioner dated 25.07.2015 for the aforesaid relief was favourably forwarded by the Executive Engineer to the

Superintending Engineer, vide its letter dated 3.8.2015, the Executive Engineer yet again by his communication dated 28.12.2015 (Annexure-7 to the

writ petition), had taken into consideration, the entire facts including the testimonials in its totality has requested the Superintending Engineer to take a

decision on the petitioner’s representation dated 25.07.2015.

In the light of the provisions contained under the Regularization Rules and in particular, as contemplated under Rule 4 of Sub Rule (2), despite of the

aforesaid request made as back as on 28.12.2015, no action has yet been taken though the petitioner continued to discharge his duties continuously on

the post of Daily Wage Computer Operator. For raising his claim, he has reiterated the same by filing a representation before the respondent no.2 on

12.12.2017, the same is pending consideration. As the determination and entitlement for claim of Regularization under the Rules of 2013, depends upon

a fact of scrutinizing his right of an individual under the Regularization Rules of 2013 and since it takes the shape of statutory duty which is to be

performed by the authority competent to consider his regularization.

This writ petition is being disposed of at this stage directing respondent no.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.12.2017,

(Annexure-12 to the writ petition) in the light of the recommendation made by the Executive Engineer dated 03.08.2015 and 28.12.2015. The aforesaid

decision on the representation would be taken by respondent no.2 within a period of six weeks from today.

Subject to the above observation, writ petition would stand disposed of. However, there would be no order as to costs.