Virendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and others

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed initially on contract basis on consolidated salary of Rs. 1600/- per month as Driver in District Rural Development Agency, Dehradun (DRDA) vide its order dated 27.08.1992; initially the said appointment was for a period of 89 days, which was extended from time to time. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 983 (S/S) 2007 seeking regularization of his service. In the said case, the following order was passed: “1. Heard Mr. C.D. Bahuguha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder for the State and perused the records.

2. It is the case of petitioner that he was appointed on consolidated salary of Rs.1600/- per month as Driver in District Rural Development Agency, Dehradun (in short “DRDA”) vide order dated 27.08.1992, which was further extended upto 26.11.1992. The said appointment was for 89 days, which was extended from time to time.

3. Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner submits that petitioner is serving continuously as Driver in DRDA, Dehradun, however, his claim regularization has not been considered so far. Learned Senior Counsel submits that petitioner is being given minimum of pay scale w.e.f. 23.03.2000 pursuant to interim order dated

09.03.2000 passed by Allahabad High Court in C.M. Writ Petition No. 6325 of 1997. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that one vacancy on a sanctioned post of Driver had occurred in DRDA, Dehradun in the year 2003 and thereafter one more vacancy had occurred on a sanctioned post of driver in the year 2014. Thus it is the case of petitioner that his services ought to have been regularized against one of these two vacancies and his grievance is that his claim is not being considered in terms of the Regularization Rules of 2013. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Commissioner Rural Development in the year 2008 in which it has been stated that presently no vacancy is available on the post of Driver. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to a letter dated 20.02.2014 issued by Project Director, DRDA, Dehradun to Commissioner Rural Development, Pauri in which it is mentioned that one post of Driver is lying vacant in DRDA since 01.01.2014. 5. Without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served, if the Competent Authority is directed to consider petitioner’s claim, in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make a representation before competent authority in DRDA, Dehradun within two weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the competent authority is directed to consider petitioner’s representation and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of eight weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.”

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in purported compliance of the order passed by Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid writ petition the case of the petitioner has been considered and rejected vide impugned order dated 05.09.2017.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that the post of driver was not sanctioned on

30.12.2013, i.e., on the date of promulgation of the “Daily Wager, Work Charge, Contract, Consolidated Salary, Part Time and Ad-hoc Appointees Regularization of Services Rules, 2013” and post became vacant on 01.01.2014. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 05.09.2017 reads as under: “4- nSfud osru/dk;Z çHkkfjr/lafonk/fu;r osru/va'kdkfyd rFkk rnFkZ dkfeZdks ds fofu;ferhdj.k ds fy, tkjh fu;ekoyh 'kklukns'k la[;k&1298/XXX¼2½2013&3/¼1½2006 fnukad 30-12-2013 ¼fu;ekoyh dk uke½ ds çLrj 04 esa mfYyf[kr fuEu 02 'krksaZ dks Jh ohjsUæ flag iw.kZ u djus ds dkj.k fu;ferhdj.k dh ik=rk ugha j[krs gSA ¼i½ fu;qfä ds le; fjä/Loh—r in ds fo#) fu;qä fd;k x;k gksA mYys[kuh; gS fd Jh ohjsUæ flag dks fnukd 25-08-1992 dks dk;Z dh vko';drkuqlkj 89 fnuksa ds fy, fu;r ekuns; ij vLFkkbZ :i ls rRdkyhu ftykf/kdkjh / v/;{k MhåvkjåMhå,å ds vkns'k ij rSukr fd;k x;k FkkA rRi'pkr~ mudh lsok esa le; le; ij yxkrkj o`f) dh tkrh jgh rFkk ekå mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn ds vkns'k fnukad 09-03-2000 ds ckn mUgsa U;wure osru fn;k tk jgk gS] ijUrq in l`tu dh Loh—fr çkIr ugha gqbZ gSA ¼ii½ fu;ekoyh ds ç[;kiu dh frfFk dks mä laoxZ esa in Loh—r ,oa fjä gksA ;gka mYys[kuh; ;g gS fd fu;ferhdj.k lEcfU/kr fu;ekoyh ç[;kiu dh frfFk 30-12-2013 gS] tcfd mlds nwljs fnu 31-12-2013 rd MhåvkjåMhå,å esa dksbZ Hkh in fjä ugha FkkA å1 in fnukad 1-01-2014 ls fjä gqvkA vr: orZeku esa Jh ohjsUæ flag dk mä dkj.kksa ls pkyd in ij fofu;ferhdj.k fd;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA Jh ohjsUæ flag dh vLFkkbZ :i ls 25 o"kZ dh yxkrkj lsok ds –f"Vxr izdj.k leLr rF;ksa ds lkFk 'kklu ds laKku esa ykuk mfpr gSA ;g dk;kZy; Kki ekå mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 10-07- 2017 ds vuqikyu esa Jh ohjsUnz flag }kjk izLrqr izR;kosnu fnukd 18-07-2017 ,oa 24-07-2017 ds fuLrkj.k ds dze esa tkjh fd;k tk jgk gSA”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have admitted the fact that the petitioner had worked continuously for 25 years as on

05.09.2017 (date of the impugned order) and now in the year 2025, the services rendered by the petitioner is more than 33 years and the petitioner is on the verge of retirement. Thus, the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for regularization under the Regularization Rules, 2013, only on the ground of non-availability of post at the time of promulgation of rules is illegal and arbitrary.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1735, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as hereunder: “17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long- term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.

18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.

19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions: i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last- drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above. ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, the period

24.04.2002 regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment. iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from

24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgement. iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement. v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement.

20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising creation supernumerary posts, regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was engaged on contract basis and his services were extended from time to time and due to non-availability of post the case of the petitioner was not considered for regularization and the impugned order make as reference of the said fact. However, the counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that as on 05.09.2017, the petitioner had completed 25 years of service.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the rejection of the case of the petitioner for regularization vide impugned order dated 05.09.2017 cannot be sustained. On the one hand, the Authority is admitting the fact that the petitioner had rendered 25 years of continuous service as on 05.09.2017, on the other hand, petitioner’s regularization is denied on ground of non-availability of vacancy on the date of promulgation of rules though it is admitted that vacancy thereafter occurs on

01.01.2014. Moreover, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra), an employee cannot absolve itself from its liability of not regularizing the services of an employee working since decades on the ground of non-availability of post.

9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 05.09.2017 is quashed. The respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as per the Regularization Rules of 2013 and in the light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra) within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this Order.

10. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs. (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 07.10.2025 Kaushal