High Court · 2025

Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deput y Advocat e General for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J. H o n ’ b l e A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J. ( Pe r : H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) JUD GM EN T This int ra- court appeal is filed by t he writ- pet it ioner challenging dism issal of his writ pet it ion by learned Single Judge, vide j udgm ent dat ed 01.12.2015, rendered in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ S) No. 996 of 2010.

2. I n his writ pet it ion, appellant had challenged order dat ed 27.04.2010, passed by Execut ive Engineer, Const ruct ion Division, Public Works Depart m ent , Nainit al, whereby his claim for regularizat ion was rej ect ed on t he ground t hat his case is not covered by Ut t aranchal Regularizat ion of Ad- hoc Appoint m ent s ( On post s Out side t he Purview of t he Public Service Com m ission) , Rules, 2002. The Execut ive Engineer had 1 given det ails about t he num ber of days appellant served as daily wager in different years, which is as follows: - S.No.

6. Year 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 Num ber of day s 120 days 149 days 22 days 105 days 91 days 90 days

3. Learned Single Judge repelled t he challenge t o t he rej ect ion order, t hrown by appellant on t he ground t hat appellant has not brought any evidence t o subst ant iat e his cont ent ion t hat he served cont inuously as Am in/ Surveyor during t he relevant period, which is t o be t aken int o account for regularizat ion. Learned Single Judge also t ook not e of t he fact t hat at t he t im e of filing of writ pet it ion in 2010, appellant was 58 years of age and he at t ained 60 years of age, which is t he age of superannuat ion in t he year 2012, t herefore in 1995, when appellant claim s t o have been appoint ed, he was about 43 years of age, which is m ore t han t he upper age lim it for appoint m ent under t he St at e, which was 35 years at t he relevant point of t im e.

4. We do not find any reason t o int erfere wit h t he im pugned j udgm ent . As per Ut t aranchal Regularizat ion of Ad- hoc Appoint m ent s ( On post s Out side t he Purview of t he Public Service Com m ission) , Rules, 2002, only such em ployee, who was direct ly appoint ed on ad- hoc basis before 30.06.1998 and was 2 cont inuing in service as such on t he dat e of com m encem ent of t hose Rules i.e. 05.07.2002 and possessed requisit e qualificat ions prescribed for regular appoint m ent on such post at t he t im e of his ad- hoc appoint m ent , alone was eligible t o be regularized.

5. Appellant concedes t hat he was appoint ed as daily wager and not as ad- hoc em ployee and t here is no pleading t he writ pet it ion t hat appellant possessed qualificat ions required for t he post of Am in / Surveyor.

6. Learned counsel for t he appellant subm it s t hat appellant was engaged as Am in by Public Works Depart m ent , as his land was affect ed due t o const ruct ion of Nat huwakhan- Suyalbari Road.

7. Learned Single Judge has given valid reasons for dism issing t he writ pet it ion filed by t he appellant . Adm it t edly, appellant at t ained age of superannuat ion in

2012. Aft er at t aining age of ret irem ent , a daily wage em ployee cannot be regularized in service. There is no provision in t he Rules for regularizat ion from back dat e.

8. Thus, any int erference wit h t he j udgm ent rendered by learned Single Judge would be uncalled for. The Special Appeal t hus fails and is dism issed. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) [ Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f4 87df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819 DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 3