2026:UHC:3104 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/105/2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Lochan Sah, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondents. 3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed on ad-hoc basis as Lab Technician in Government Institute of Hotel Management and Catering Technology, Dehradun in the year 1993. His ad-hoc appointment was cancelled on 04.05.1995; and he was re-engaged on contract w.e.f. 03.08.1995; petitioner was regularised on the post of Lab Technician on 22.03.2012 (the post of Lab Technician is now known as Instructor) and he is thereafter serving as such in the institute. 4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “i. issue a writ, order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Instructor (earlier known as Lab Technician) w.e.f. 13.5.1993 instead of 22.3.2012. ii. issue a writ, order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give all consequential service benefits, including arrears of salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 13.5.1993 from which he is continuously working as Lab Technician (now known as Instructor).” 5. It is contended that in 1993 when petitioner was given ad-hoc appointment as Lab Technician, two persons were directly given regular appointment, namely Mr. Karan Singh Bisht and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jakhmola and later it was found that 2026:UHC:3104 documents produced by Mr. Karan Singh Bisht are forged, and he ultimately resigned from the post, therefore, petitioner contends that he should be given regular appointment against the vacancy caused due to resignation of Mr. Karan Singh Bisht. 6. Learned State Counsel, per contra, submits that as many as 3 persons, were given ad-hoc appointment as Lab Technician in the year 1993, namely petitioner, Mr. Tripurari Singh and Mr. Rajendra Singh; and ad-hoc appointment of these three persons was cancelled in 1995; subsequently these three persons were given contractual appointment as Lab Technician and all of them were regularised in 2012 as Instructor. Thus, he submits that narrative prepared by the petitioner for discrimination, is not correct and petitioner was given his rightful due, as was given to other similarly situate employees. He, however, submits that if petitioner still has any grievance, then he can approach the competent authority. 7. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. 8. Since petitioner’s services were regularised in 2012 along with other two similarly situate persons, therefore, his claim for regularisation w.e.f. 1993 is without any basis. The writ petition, however, is disposed of by permitting petitioner to highlight his other grievances, if any, by making a representation to the competent authority. If he makes representation within two weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken by the competent authority, within four months thereafter. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 24.04.2026 Navin