High Court · 2025

Mr. Rahul Adhikari, Advocat e for t he appellant . Mr. Rahul Verm a, Addit ional Advocat e General for t he St at e of Ut t arak hand / respondent s. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , 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 There is delay of 96 days in filing t his Special Appeal.

2. Reasons furnished in t he Delay Condonat ion Applicat ion are sufficient t o condone t he delay in filing t he Special Appeal. Accordingly, Delay Condonat ion Applicat ion ( CLMA No. 19391 of 2018) is allowed and t he delay in filing t he Special Appeal is condoned.

3. This int ra- court appeal is direct ed against final order dat ed 02.08.2018, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ S) No. 915 of 2017. By t he said order, writ pet it ion filed by t he appellant , claim ing regularizat ion against t he post of Forest Guard, was dism issed. Operat ive port ion of t he im pugned order is reproduced below: - 1 t he count er affidavit , for regularizat ion as per Rule 4 of “ 3. Pet it ioner nowhere st at ed t hat on which post he was working on daily wage basis. Pet it ioner him self claim ed t he Regularizat ion Rules, 2003 and in t his Rule, t here is no provision for regularizat ion on Group C post s. Adm it t edly, post of Forest Guard is Group C post . Respondent s no. 2 and 3 have filed count er affidavit . I n para 7 of t hey have cat egorically st at ed t hat service condit ions of t he Forest Guard are governed by provisions of t he Subordinat e Forest Service Rules. Claim of pet it ioner for regularizat ion has already been adm it t ed by t he respondent Depart m ent way back in 2014. Pet it ioner accept ed t he order of regularizat ion wit hout any prot est . Now, aft er get t ing regularizat ion, pet it ioner cannot seeking regularizat ion on Group C post , which is out side t he purview of Regularizat ion Rules. Second pet it ion for sam e relief is barred by principles of res j udicat a. t his Court approach

4. I n view of t he above discussion, I do not find any m erit in t he pet it ion. Writ pet it ion fails and is hereby dism issed. No order as t o cost s.”

4. I t is not in disput e t hat appellant was engaged as daily wager in Forest Depart m ent in t he year 1975. Since his claim for regularizat ion was not being considered, t herefore, he filed Writ Pet it ion ( S/ S) No. 1399 of 2013 seeking regularizat ion, which was decided in t erm s of t he j udgm ent rendered in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ S) No. 1589 of 2004; t he aut horit ies were direct ed t o consider t he pet it ioner in t hat case for regularizat ion under t he Regularizat ion ( On Group “ D” Post s) of Daily Wages Appoint m ent Rules, 2003. I n t erm s of t he direct ion issued in favour of pet it ioner in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ S) No. 1399 of 2013, he was considered and regularized on a Group- D post of Chaukidar, vide order dat ed 05.02.2014.

5. Aft er accept ing t he order of regularizat ion on a Group- D post , appellant filed anot her writ pet it ion claim ing regularizat ion on a Group- C post of Forest Guard w.e.f. t he dat e of regularizat ion of his j unior i.e. 2

15.09.2003. The said writ pet it ion having been dism issed by learned Single Judge, he has com e up in appeal.

6. We do not find any reason t o int erfere wit h t he im pugned order passed by learned Single Judge. There is not hing on record t o show t hat t he appellant served on a Group- C post of Forest Guard. I n his earlier writ pet it ion also, he relied upon a j udgm ent in which direct ion was issued t o regularize t he pet it ioner in t hat case, on a Group- D post . I n t erm s of t he said j udgm ent , appellant was given benefit of regularizat ion on a Group- D post , which he readily accept ed, wit hout raising any dem ur, t herefore, learned Single Judge was j ust ified holding t hat aft er accept ing t he regularizat ion on a Group- D post , he cannot now claim regularizat ion on a Group- C post .

7. For t he aforesaid reasons, Special Appeal fails and is dism issed. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 15.07.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb 4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653 D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 3