2026:UHC:2045 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/805/2017 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Rohit Gaur, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Amar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. N.K. Papnoi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent- Sugar Company. 4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 24.4.2017 (Annexure-5) passed by respondent no. 2. b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to give fitment/regularization to the petitioner on the post of Cane Development Supervisor/Cane Development Inspector along with all consequential benefits from the date when the juniors to petitioner and similarly situated persons have been given fitment/regularization on the said post.” 5. According to petitioner, he was appointed as Cane Clerk on daily wages in Doiwala Sugar Company Ltd. w.e.f. 22.11.1995 and he was given status of seasonal employee w.e.f. 3.12.2003. He is aggrieved by denial of fitment on the post of Cane Development Supervisor. According to him, one Mr. Subhash Chand, who was appointed as Cane Clerk 2026:UHC:2045 on daily wages in the sugar mill on 26.12.1995 and who was also given status of seasonal employee w.e.f. 3.12.2003, was given fitment on the post of Cane Development Supervisor by completely ignoring his claim. Petitioner had made a representation highlighting the said grievance, which has been rejected by the Executive Director of the sugar mill, vide order dated 24.4.2017. 6. In the impugned order, it is admitted that petitioner was senior to Subhash Chand. However, fitment given to Subhash Chand is sought to be justified by stating that Subhash Chand is elder in age and thereafter it is mentioned that Subhash Chand had experience of serving as Cane Development Supervisor. 7. The reasons assigned for rejecting petitioner’s representation are not plausible. One of the reasons for justifying fitment given to Subhash Chand is that he has experience of serving as Cane Development Supervisor. If this was the reason for not giving the benefit of fitment to the petitioner, then comparison of age of petitioner and Subhash Chand was not relevant. The manner in which the representation has been dealt with indicates that there is something more to it than what meets the eye. Age of an employee, if is relevant while granting fitment on a post, then the names in the seniority list have to be arranged as per the age/date of birth. Admittedly, petitioner stands at serial no. 26, while Subhash Chand stands at serial no. 35 in the seniority list, which is enclosed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. 2026:UHC:2045 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 24.4.2017, passed by Executive Director, is set aside. The competent authority is directed to reconsider the representation made by the petitioner and pass a speaking order, as per law, within eight weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. 9. It goes without saying that all persons, likely to be affected by the order to be passed, including Subhash Chand shall also be heard before taking any decision on petitioner’s representation. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 23.03.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3 a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22D ACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.03.24 06:04:41 -07'00'