2026:UHC:3191 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS 1136/2026 WPSS 1138/2026 WPSS 1139/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Central Govt. Standing Counsel, for the Union of India. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, for the respondent no. 2 and 3. (2) Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is identical, therefore, these are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. However, for brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1136 of 2026 alone are being considered and discussed here. (3) Petitioner is serving as Multi Tasking Staff in Gurukul Kangri (Deemed to be University) at Haridwar, reportedly since 2003. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that despite availability of work, his claim for regularisation is not being considered. (4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the work is perennial in nature, therefore, availability of post has to be presumed, even if no post was formally sanctioned. (5) Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned Counsel appearing for the University, concedes that petitioner is serving continuously since 2003, however he points out that petitioner is serving under a Self-Finance Scheme and he is not serving in a course/college, which is financed by University Grants Commission or State or Central Government. (6) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, per contra, submits that even though petitioner is referred to as serving under a Self-Finance Scheme, however the entire 2026:UHC:3191 funding is done by University Grants Commission, therefore no distinction can be made between employees serving in courses which are funded by University Grants Commission vis-a-vis employees serving under Self-Finance Scheme. Learned Counsel submits that after serving for 23 long years, everyone earns a vested right to be regularised, therefore petitioner also deserves to be regularised in service. (7) Learned Counsel for the University submits that there is no scheme framed for regularisation as of now. He, however, submits that if petitioner makes representation to the competent authority for regularisation, the same shall be considered, as per law, expeditiously. (8) Writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of by permitting the petitioners to make separate representation claiming regularisation. If petitioners make such representation within two weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken by the competent authority, as per law, within three months thereafter. For a period of four months or till decision is taken on petitioners’ representation, whichever is earlier, their services shall not be disturbed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 28.4.2026 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6 eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806AC CC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.04.28 14:47:39 +05'30' 2026:UHC:3191