2026:UHC:2535-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB/331/2023 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Per-Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Nalin Saun, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General for the State. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.12.2022, passed by Chief Engineer (Headquarter), Uttarakhand Pey Jal Sansthan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam. By the said order, petitioner’s claim for service benefits w.e.f. 31.12.2004 was rejected, and it was provided that petitioner would be entitled to benefit only w.e.f. 20.03.2017. 3. It is not in dispute that petitioner was earlier serving as Junior Engineer in U.P. Cooperative Processing and Cold Storage Federation Limited (PACSFED) and he was retrenched from that service. Subsequently, he was reappointed on contract for a period of one year in Uttarakhand Pey Lal Nigam pursuant to Government Order dated 28.12.2004. 4. It is also not in dispute that petitioner joined duties in Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam on 31.12.2004. After serving for about 13 years on contract in Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam, petitioner was regularised on the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f. 2026:UHC:2535-DB 20.03.2017. 5. It is not in dispute that petitioner retired from service in 2022. Petitioner had made a representation claiming service benefits w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment on contract in Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam which, however, was rejected by the competent authority. 6. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.12.2022. 7. Law is well settled that State employee or employee of statutory corporation becomes member of service only after regular appointment. Petitioner was appointed on contractual basis in 2004 for one year at a time, even though petitioner’s contractual appointment was extended from time to time; however, he acquired status of regular employee only in 2017. 8. Petitioner was paid agreed remuneration in terms of contract entered into between him and the employer till 2017, therefore, he cannot claim anything else for the period other than what was due to him and what has already been paid. 9. Thus, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 08.04.2026 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c , postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BA BA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2026.04.08 18:19:47 +05'30' 2026:UHC:2535-DB