2025:UHC:8995 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1121 (S/S) of 2016 Sunil Kumar --------------Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ----------Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Harendra Belwal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 & 5. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayers: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to prepare the joint eligibility of all contractual employees working in the Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur in terms of Rule 6 of the Regularization Rules, 2013. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the Joint Eligibility list to be prepared in terms of Rule 6 of the Regularization Rules, 2013. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction restraining the responded Naga Palika Parishad, Jasppur from undertaking the process for regularization of the services of the contractual employees on Group ‘D’ post unless and until the Joint eligibility list is prepared in terms of Rule 6 of the 1 2025:UHC:8995 Regularization Rules, 2013. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Sweeper (class-IV post) since 2001 and has filed present writ petition against the action of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur, wherein the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of the contractual employees and whose case was to be considered for regularization on vacant Group ‘D’ post in terms of the provisions of “Daily Wager, Work Charged, Contract, Consolidated Salary, Part Time and Ad-hoc Appointees Regularization of Services Rules, 2013”. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was discriminated as the persons, who were engaged in the year 2009 were considered for regularization, whereas the petitioner who is working since 2001 was left out. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the similarly situated persons, as that of the petitioner, who were also working as Safai Karmchari (Sweeper) on contract basis in Nagar Palika Parisahd Jasupur, approached this Hon’ble Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1117 (S/S) of 2016, Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand & others; that the said petitioners were also aggrieved by non-inclusion of their names in the list of employees to be considered for regularization and the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 1117 (S/S) of 2016, Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, and other connected writ petitions were listed before the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 20.02.2017, whereby the Writ Petitions were allowed and the 2 2025:UHC:8995 respondents were directed to complete the process of Regularization as expeditiously as possible and to calculate the seniority of the petitioners in accordance with law after considering the continuity of the services; that the Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur, preferred Special Appeal No. 220 of 2017, Executive Officer vs. State of Uttarakhand & others and other Special Appeals against the judgment dated 20.02.2017; that the Special Appeals preferred by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur was listed before the Division Bench of this Court on 16.06.2025 and Hon’ble Division Bench dismissed the Special Appeals by holding that there is no scope of interference in the directions given by the learned Single Judge to consider the case of the writ petitions for regularization; that the case of the petitioner is similar to the case of the employees in whose favour the judgment was passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 20.02.2017, as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Special Appeal N.220 of 2017, Executive Officer, vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and other connected Special Appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the case of the petitioner is similar to the case of the employees in whose favour the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench, as such, the present Writ Petition is liable to be decided in terms of the said judgment. He refers to para 7 of the said judgment which reads as under: “We do not find any scope of interference with the 3 2025:UHC:8995 direction issued to consider case of writ petitioners for regularization, and the competent authority will complete the exercise within 8 weeks from date of presentation of certified copy of this Judgment, before him. However, their seniority shall be governed by applicable Rules and the direction issued on said aspects stands modified to the extent indicated above.” 5. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that, in case, of similarly situated employees, the Division Bench of this Court on 16.06.2025 has dismissed the Civil Appeal filed by the Nagar Palika Parishad. 6. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the para 7 of the Order dated 16.06.2025, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 243 of 2017, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Jaspur vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for regularization within 8 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the Order. (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 08.10.2025 Kaushal 4