Vinod Kumar And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Other

Ravindra Maithani, J

Petitioners claim regularization in services pursuant to the Notification No.1298/XXX(2)/2013-3(1)/2006 dated 30.12.2013.

It is the case of the petitioners that they have been working in the office of the respondent no.2 for the last many years on contractual basis. But, their services have yet not been regularized. Earlier they moved a writ petition bearing WPSS No.898 of 2021, which was decided on 26.07.2021, with the directions to the respondent no.2, to decide the representation that may be filed by the petitioners.

It is the case that the representation has been rejected by the respondent no.2. Petitioners claim that their services ought to have been regularized in view of Daily Wagers, Work Charge, Contractual, Fixed Pay, Part Time and Adhoc Employees Regularization Rules, 2013 (for short, "the 2013 Rules").

The representation of the petitioners have been rejected by an order dated 23.08.2021 of respondent no.2, which is Annexure No.8 to the writ petition. It categorically records that the 2013 Rules are not in operation pursuant to an interim order, passed by this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset, admits that the operation of the 2013 Rules have been stayed by an order of this Court.

The Court wanted to know, if the 2013 Rules are not in operation by virtue of an interim order, passed by this Court, how could petitioners claim under those Rules?

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that as and when the interim order of this Court is vacated, thereafter, this matter may be taken up.

Learned State counsel would submit that the 2013 Rules are not in operation because this Court has stayed its operation by an interim order. He would also submit that, in fact, the petitioners are not complying with the directions to fill up bond, as was directed by the communication dated 03.09.2021 of respondent no.2.

Be it as it may, the petitioners claim their regularizations on the basis of 2013 Rules. It is admitted to the petitioners also that the 2013 Rules are not in operation today. They are in abeyance. Their operation have been stayed. In such a situation, at present, definitely petitioners have no rights which they may derive from the 2013 Rules.

Without touching upon any other aspects of the matter, this Court is of the view that, in fact, it would also not be expedient in the interest of justice to keep this writ petition pending, awaiting the disposal of the writ petition, in which, interim order was passed by staying the operation of the 2013 Rules. Instead, it is open to the petitioners that as and when the 2013 Rules comes into operation or they may derive their rights from any other Rules, they may approach the Court. In view of it, at present, petitioners have no right which may be invoked by means of the instant writ petition and accordingly, it deserves to be dismissed.

The writ petition is dismissed in limine.