Dharmendra Joshi vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Petitioner has filed present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of petitioner for regularizing the service of petitioner on the post of Junior Assistant/ Computer Typist or any other equivalent post in the same pay scale, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been working in the State Planning Commission from last 32 years on ad hoc basis, with effect from the date when the services of similarly situated persons were regularized i.e. 17.05.2005.

It is the case of petitioner that petitioner was initially engaged as a Typist on 04.11.1986 as a daily wager and he joined in Hill Development Department of State Planning Commission of State of Uttar Pradesh. He continued to work on the said post till 22.07.1989. Thereafter, petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis as Junior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.500-800 in the regional office of Hill Development Department, Almora and he joined there on 25.07.1989. Vide order dated 23.03.1991, services of petitioner were put to an end by the respondents but pursuant to the interim order dated 22.04.1991 passed by the Lucknow Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.2413 of 1991 (New WPSS No.513 of 2003) (Dharmendra Joshi v. State of U.P.), petitioner was re-instated and he joined on the said post of Junior Assistant on 23.12.1991. After creation of State of Uttarakhand, the said writ petition was transferred to Uttarakhand High Court which was ultimately allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 17.05.2005, whereby, the respondent –State was directed to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Lower Division Assistant if the post and work are still available in the office. It is undisputed that thereafter, petitioner continued on the said post.

Petitioner contends that similarly situated persons Ganesh Prasad Deorani, Dinesh Chandra Bhatt, Harsh Mani Bhatt, Rajendra Prasad Gururani and Chandra Singh Garia, who were working in the same Department, were regularized pursuant to the intervention of the High Court in the writ petitions filed by those persons and vide order dated 27.07.2011, they were regularized in service w.e.f. 17.05.2005. Petitioner made a prayer for regularization on the post of Junior Assistant from the date similarly situated persons were regularized i.e. 17.05.2005.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1, in paragraph no.3 whereof, it is stated that petitioner was earlier offered regularization on the post of Computer Typist on the basis of qualification held by him, however, he did not agree to such proposal; by his application dated 07.07.2011, he requested for regularization on the post of Lower Division Assistant but due to non-possessing the necessary qualification for the said post, he was not regularized. Thereafter, though the petitioner acceded to the request for being regularized on the post of Junior Assistant/ Computer Typist on 24.01.2019, but on the said date, there was no vacancy available on the post of Computer Typist, and due to that reason, petitioner was not regularized.

Since the respondent-State nowhere denied for regularization of petitioner, therefore, vide order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, Secretary of the Department was called personally, and he was asked as to why regularization of petitioner was not done. The Secretary sought time for considering the regularization of petitioner, and later on, instead of regularizing the petitioner, a response affidavit was filed, in paragraph nos.23 and 24 whereof, it is stated that the petitioner was not in possession of educational qualification required for the post of Lower Division Clerk/Junior Assistant even in the year 1993 when the rules were promulgated, whereas in the year 2019, petitioner informed that he possessed the required educational qualification.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for petitioner that in the communication between him and the Department, the respondent-State has nowhere denied regularization of petitioner, and it is for the first time in the response affidavit filed in this petition, issue of educational qualification of petitioner was raised, however in letter dated 28.09.2017 (page no.96 of paper book) which was written by Additional Secretary, State Planning Commission to Deputy Secretary, Planning, U.K. Government, Dehradun, it is stated that petitioner is having the qualification of Intermediate; it is also stated that since regularization of similarly situated persons was done at the level of government, therefore, in the case of petitioner also, the decision can be taken at the level of State Government.

Apart from this, in communication dated 31.08.2017 (paper no.93), the Additional Secretary of the State Planning Commission strongly recommends that the regularization of petitioner should be done in the same manner as was done in the case of four other persons namely Chandra Singh Gariya, Rajendra Prasad Gururani, Ganesh Prasad Devrani and Dinesh Chandra Bhatt w.e.f. 17.05.2005. The Additional Secretary found the matter of petitioner to be similar to that of aforesaid four persons, and he forwarded the case of petitioner to the Deputy Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand for petitioner’s regularization.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the documents and correspondence(s) between the responsible officers of the Government, this Court is of the view that nowhere during the entire period, matter of regularization of petitioner was denied, rather it was recommended several times on the basis that petitioner’s case is similar to other similarly situated persons who were regularized in 2011 w.e.f. 17.05.2005. But due to the reasons best known to respondents, case of petitioner was not considered constraining the petitioner to file present writ petition.

During pendency of present writ petition, petitioner was superannuated on 30.09.2024. But the retirement of petitioner cannot deny him the benefit of longstanding service rendered by him in ad hoc capacity with the respondent-Department since 04.11.1986 as daily wager and since 25.07.1989 on ad hoc basis as Junior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.500-800. Petitioner spent his entire youth and life in the service of the State Government.

In such view of the matter, writ petition is allowed. The writ of mandamus is issued to respondents to consider the case of petitioner for regularization on the post of Typist or any other Class III post keeping in mind the longstanding service rendered by petitioner firstly w.e.f. 1986 as Typist and subsequently as Junior Assistant from 25.07.1989, w.e.f. 17.05.2005 i.e. the date when the similarly situated persons were regularized by the respondent Department. The respondent-State shall create a supernumerary post for said purpose, if post is not available. Needless to say the petitioner shall get all the admissible and consequential service benefits w.e.f. 17.05.2005.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.