2025:UHC:8075 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL 11 September, 2025 Writ Petition Service Single No.1877 of 2015 Baldev Joshi and Another --Petitioners Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents With Writ Petition Service Single No.1878 of 2015 Baldev Joshi and Another --Petitioners Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Rahul Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Bhupendra Koranga and Mr. Tarun Mohan, learned Brief Holders for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Since in these writ petitions, common question of law and facts are involved, hence, they are being taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts of No.1877 of 2015 are taken into consideration alone. 2. By means of these writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.09.2014 as well as prayed for a direction to the respondents to permit them in the peaceful function on the post of Class IV in the District Rural Development Agency (D.R.D.A.) Champawat and accordingly pay them salary. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that initially they were appointed on daily wages basis in the P.R.D. 1 2025:UHC:8075 (Pantiya Rakshak Dal) in the year 2003 and thereafter they were appointed with the respondent No.4-DRDA Champawat as Peon on contract basis in July 2007. On 14.11.2013, the respondent No.4 granted bonus to the petitioners. On 18.06.2013, the respondent No.4 has sent the names of petitioners for absorption to respondent No.2 in pursuant to the letter dated 17.05.2013 issued by the Secretary Rural Development Uttarakhand, whereby, the information was sought regarding the absorption of employee working in the D.R.D.A. But, instead of regularizing the services of the petitioners on Class IV post, the respondents arbitrarily without giving any opportunity of hearing or show cause notice to the petitioners orally discontinued the services of the petitioners. The petitioners had completed more than five years continuous service as contract employee in D.R.D.A. till 2013. Feeling aggrieved by it, petitioners have filed a writ petition before this Court bearing WPSS No.395 of 2014 Baldev Joshi and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, which was disposed of vide order dated 06.09.2014, with a direction to respondent no.3 that in case there is sufficient budget and there is need for the petitioners, he shall consider engaging the petitioners in the project. After the said order, respondent No.4 passed order dated 29.09.2014, whereby, petitioners were informed that there is no need of Volunteers of P.R.D. in D.R.D.A. Thus, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.4 itself sent the names of the petitioners for absorption on 18.06.2013. He further submits that the petitioners were appointed on Class IV post against the sanction and vacant post in the month of 2 2025:UHC:8075 July 2007 and on the date of notification of the Regularization of Daily Wages, Work Charge, Contract, Fixed Salary, Part Time and Ad-hoc Employees Rules 2013, petitioners have completed more than five years continuous service as contract employee in D.R.D.A. Champawat, therefore, the petitioners are fully eligible to be regularized their services on Class IV post as per the Regularization Rules, 2013. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in compliance of this Court’s order dated 06.09.2014, when respondent No.4 passed order dated 29.09.2014, petitioners were not the volunteers of the P.R.D. at that time, they were contract employee of the D.R.D.A. and further the State Government had already been sanctioned the sufficient budget. Further, the petitioners have sought information under the Right to Information Act from the District Youth Welfare and Prantiya Rakshak Dal, Champawat, in which, it was cleared that the respondent had appointed one-Sri Bhuwan Prasad from P.R.D. in place of the petitioners, thus it is wrong to say that there is no work available. 6. It is further contended by him that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis in D.R.D.A. but the respondents have terminated the service of the petitioners treating them employee of P.R.D. 7. Learned State Counsel has filed counter affidavit. On the basis of which, learned State Counsel submits that the D.R.D.A. is the registered society, registered under Societies Registration Act and the same is not the Government Department, hence, the provisions of Regularization Rules 2013 are not applicable in D.R.D.A. Further, the petitioners have not completed five years of service on the date of enforcement of these Rules 3 2025:UHC:8075 i.e. 30.12.2013 and on the date of enforcement, no post was vacant against the Group D Cadre. He further submits that at present the Group D post has been declared as a dying cadre. He also submits that the petitioners are not the employee of D.R.D.A., they were the swayam sewak of the P.R.D, therefore, the order of removal from service has been given to them. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy this Court by documentary evidence that they are contractual employees of the respondent-D.R.D.A. From perusal of the letter dated 18.06.2013, it was also found that petitioners’ names were never sent to the respondent No.2 for absorption. As against this, learned State Counsel proved this fact that the petitioners were the volunteers of P.R.D., therefore, they cannot be taken back in service and cannot be regularized. Thus, there is no force in these writ petitions and accordingly dismissed. 9. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 11.09.2025 PN 4