Naresh Chandra Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand and others

Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court towards the Government Order dated 02.01.2024 and 02.08.2024, by which, the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) has been sanctioned by the Government in Medical College, Haridwar and Pithoragarh and, as such, he submits that the petitioner cannot be discriminated, vis-à-vis, other employees working as Physical Training Instructor (PTI) in other medical colleges.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner is in service since 3rd April, 2006 and has completed more than 19 years of service on contract basis. The Regularization Rules of 2013 were put to challenge in Writ Petition (S/B) 616 of 2018 and other connected writ petitions before this Court and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court while disposing of 4 the Writ Petition passed the following Order: “This order shall dispose of above mentioned 05 cases, as common questions of facts and law are involved in them.

2. The short question for consideration in these cases is that, after making the Rules of Regularization in the year 2011, the State of Uttarakhand had regularized all those employees, who had completed 10 years of service. However, subsequently, Rules were made on

31.12.2013 for regularizing those employees, who were not covered as per the Rules of 2011, and these Rules were made, keeping in view the fact that the State of Uttarakhand came into being on 09.11.2000, and many departments came into being after 2000, and there were number of employees, who could not complete 10 years of service, when 2011 Rules were framed, and they could not be regularized. Being a beneficial legislation, the State of Uttarakhand came up with the Rules of 2013, and reduced the period of regularization from 10 years to 05 years.

3. The grievance of the petitioners in this batch of cases is that the period of 10 years could not have been reduced to 05 years.

4. Since the present case is a special case, where the State was not in existence before 2000, 10 years’ period could not be completed by number of employees, as per the 2011 Rules, once the State came into being on 09.11.2000. Hence, in order to accommodate those employees, this Policy of 31.12.2013 was made. The grievance of the petitioners is only that, by creating the Rules of 2013, the State of Uttarakhand has reduced the period to 05 years, rather than restricting it to 10 years.

5. Even if this argument of counsel for the petitioners is taken into consideration today, number of employees, who have been regularized after giving 05 years of service, have now served for almost 11 more years after 2013, and even if this condition of 05 years is to be amended, the services of those employees, who have already been regularized as per the 2013 Rules, cannot be de-regularized, as they have served for almost 14 years now.

6. In the present case, there was an interim order of stay dated

04.12.2018, that no orders of regularization will be passed by the State Government, under the 2013 Rules. Hence, since 04.12.2018 no regularization orders have been passed. All those persons, who have been regularized as per the 2013 Rules before 04.12.2018, have worked for more than 13-14 years now. With respect to other 5 candidates, who have to be regularized now, they can be regularized, as per the 2013 Rules, by taking into consideration 10 years’ service, instead of 05 years, as of now.

7. Accordingly, the 2013 Rules are being modified that, after

04.12.2018, 10 years’ period will be taken into consideration for regularization.

8. In view of the above, all the above mentioned Writ Petitions/ Special Appeals are disposed of.

9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.”

8. The Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner for regularization is as such liable to be considered under the 2013 Rules, as the petitioner has completed more than 19 years of service. Submission of learned counsel for the respondent-State that the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) is not sanctioned, as such, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for regularization, is bereft of merit. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dharam Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1735 while considering the case of employees seeking regularization, has held in para 17 to 20 as under: “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 6 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 regularizations, 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 7 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 Judgment. 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 Judgment.

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 8 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.”

9. In view of the above discussions, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization under the 2013 Rules within a period of 8 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

10. With the above observations, the writ Petition is disposed of. (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 28.11.2025 Kaushal 9