2025:UHC:778 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS No.3249 of 2018 with WPSS No.3252 of 2018 WPSS No.3255 of 2018 WPSS No.3268 of 2018 WPSS No.3270 of 2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Petitioners were appointed on contract as Faculty in Government I.T.I., Pines, Nainital, run by Social Welfare Department, in different years. All of them have completed more than 10 years of service as Contract Faculty. Since their claim for regularization has not been considered so far, therefore, petitioners have approached this Court for relief. 3. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No.3249 of 2018 alone are being considered and discussed. 4. In Writ Petition (S/S) No.3249 of 2018, the following relief has been sought: “I. Issue a writ, rule or direction in nature of certiorarified mandamus to direct the respondents to treat the appointment of the petitioner has substantive and regular and declare the terms used as contractual in his appointment order as sham and misnomer along with all consequential benefits and also to restrain the respondents to fill up the posts occupied by the petitioner by way of direct recruitment till the disposal of the writ petition in view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated in body of the writ petition and further to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption as a regular employee, keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the writ petition and also to declare the policy for given artificial break at the end of the year and thereafter extension on the basis of year to year is unfair labour practice and the same is to be declare void after calling the entire record from the respondents, along with its effect and operation also.” 2025:UHC:778 5. It is not in dispute that Mr. Rajesh Chandra Pandey (petitioner in WPSS No.3249 of 2018) was appointed as Prashikshan Mitra vide order dated 07.01.2011. According to him, he has been serving continuously on contract as Prashikshan Mitra in Government I.T.I., Pines, Nainital, thus, he has earned a right to be considered for regularization which, however, has not been considered so far. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Jaggo Vs. Union of India & others”, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, where Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observation in paragraph nos.25, 26 & 27: “25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: • Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in 2025:UHC:778 irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Government of Uttarakhand has framed Rules for regularization of contract/ad-hoc/daily wage employees, which were notified, on 31.12.2013. The said Rules were challenged before this Court in WPSB No.616 of 2018 and a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22.02.2024 passed the following order: “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 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner for regularization is thus covered by the aforesaid Rules, as explained by Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment. 9. Learned State Counsel also concedes that Division Bench has modified the Rules to some extent, however, he submits that the issue, as to whether the case of the petitioners would be covered by the 2025:UHC:778 modification made by Division Bench, is to be examined by the Authorities and he cannot make any statement on the said aspect. 10. Be that as it may, since petitioners have put in more than 10 years of continuous service as contract employee, therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to Director, Social Welfare to constitute a Regularization Committee to examine the claim of the petitioners in the light of Regularization Rules of 2013, as modified vide judgment dated 22.02.2024. The entire exercise shall be completed within four months’ from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 12.02.2025 Arpan