2026:UHC:3357 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/8/2021 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ganga Singh Negi, Additional CSC for the State. 2. Petitioners are serving as Hostel Assistant and Cook respectively in Uttarakhand Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj at Rudrapur, reportedly since 2003-2004. Earlier they served in Administrative Training Institute, Nainital since 1997. Since their claim is not being considered for regularisation, therefore, they approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “I Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to regularized the services of petitioner on the post of Hostel Assistant in the light of rules namely 'Daily Wagers. Work-charged, Contract. Fixed Pay, Part-time and Adhoc Appointed Employees, Regularization Rules, 2011 (For short herein after referred as regularization rules 2011) or in the light of amended Regularization Rules of 2013, as the petitioners full fills all the requirement of the rules and serving on the said post since last 23 years. II Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to convert / treat the services of petitioner as Contract employee in the light of Government order dated 27.12.2016 and pay them all consequential benefits. III Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to grant the minimum pay scale of the post of Hostel Assistant and Cook, respectively, by the petitioner, in the light of Judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex court in the matter of Jagjeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148.” 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the 2026:UHC:3357 petitioners that after serving for more than 29 years, as daily wagers/contract employees, they have earned a right to be regularised, which, however, is denied to them. Reference is made to Regularisation Rules, framed in 2013, which were amended in December, 2025. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that petitioners were engaged on contract through an outsourcing agency on year-to-year basis, and they are not appointed against any sanctioned post, therefore petitioners do not have any right to be considered for regularisation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply, relies upon the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, as well as in the case of Jaggo (Jaggu) Vs. Union of India and others, for contending that after taking work from petitioners for nearly three decades, it is not open to respondents to contend that they were engaged without there being a sanctioned post. It is contended that there shall be a presumption that petitioners were appointed against a sanctioned post. 6. Without expressing any opinion on the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met it petitioners are permitted to approach the competent authority by making representation. 2026:UHC:3357 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting petitioners to make representation within two weeks, claiming regularisation. If petitioners make such representation within stipulated time, decision thereupon shall be taken by the competent authority, within eight weeks thereafter. 8. If petitioners are found eligible for regularisation, then their case shall be referred to the Regularisation Committee, which shall pass necessary orders, under 2013 Rules, within six weeks thereafter. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 04.05.2026 Mahinder/