2026:UHC:2593 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/996/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Yashpal Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for UPNL. 2. According to petitioner, he was engaged through an outsourcing agency in Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited (UPCL) for discharging duties as ‘Sub-Station Operator’, and he served in that capacity for nearly 10 years, therefore, he has earned a right to be regularised in service; however, his representation made for regularisation was rejected vide order dated 10.03.2026, passed by Executive Engineer. 3. The impugned order dated 10.03.2026 is on record as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. In the said order, reference is made to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1286 of 2023 (SS), wherein the statement made by learned counsel appearing for UPCL was recorded that aspersion cast against the petitioner in the order impugned of that writ petition had been removed and petitioner has been repatriated to UPNL, for employment 2026:UHC:2593 elsewhere and that writ petition was disposed of in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for the UPCL. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, refers to the last sentence of para No. 7 of the order passed in WPSS No. 1286 of 2023. 5. This Court do not find any substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. Merely because the earlier writ petition of petitioner was disposed of without prejudice to his rights and contentions of the petitioner will not entitle him to claim regularisation on the post of ‘Sub-Station Operator’, especially when he was disengaged from UPCL w.e.f. 03.07.2023, and petitioner’s challenge to the order of disengagement was repelled; however, the aspersions cast against the petitioner in the order of disengagement were expunged so that he may find employment elsewhere. 6. The claim of petitioner for regularisation, if seen in that backdrop, does not substantiate the challenge to the rejection order dated 10.03.2026, as made in the writ petition. 7. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 09.04.2026 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=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D 2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2026.04.16 10:21:09 +05'30' 2026:UHC:2593