2026:UHC:914-DB 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Bench No.12 of 2020 Ashish Rawat and Ors. --Petitioners Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents With Writ Petition Service Bench No.521 of 2019 Sunil Badoni --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Ors. –Respondents With Writ Petition Service Bench No.342 of 2022 Sunil Badoni --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Ors. –Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence: Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for petitioners, through V.C. Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned Additional C.S.C. with Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 to 5. Coram: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. (Oral) Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these cases, therefore, they are being heard and decided together by this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition No.12 of 2020(S/B) alone are being considered. 2. According to petitioners, they were engaged on Contract in District Disaster Management Centre, Dehradun and they served in that capacity for sufficiently long period of time. According to them, instead of absorbing them in regular service, Competent Authority invited fresh applications for regular appointment and upon completion of 2026:UHC:914-DB 2 selection process, candidates recommended by Selection Committee were engaged on contract basis against the available vacancies, and in the process, their engagement was discontinued. 3. By means of the writ petition, petitioners have sought the following reliefs:- I. Issue a writ, rule or direction in the nature of certiorarified mandamus to declare the impugned order dated 28.11.2019 and advertisement dated 16.12.2019 in league with order dated 26.12.2019 unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary and void and to strike down and quash the same, alongwith its effect and operation also, after calling the entire record from the respondents, keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the writ petition or to mould the relief accordingly. II. Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to declare the term used in the appointment orders of the petitioners as contractual is misnomer and camouflage and to declare the appointment of the petitioners is regular and permanent and also direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in service by giving benefit of absorption in the USDMA had it been the impugned orders were never inexistence with all consequential benefits, keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the writ petition. III. III. Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents for filling up the post by way of contractual employment on the basis of the advertisement amounts to replacing one set of contractual employees by another set of contractual employees and unfair labour practice and also declare the action of the respondents for not providing any preference, weightage and relaxation to the existing employees of DMMC is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law and restrained them to filling up the post and position occupied by the petitioners, keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the writ petition. IV. Issue a writ, rule, order or direction appropriate in nature to award damages and compensation to the petitioners from the erring officers including private respondent jointly and severally in tune of Rs.1.00 Crores for each of the petitioners or such amount which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in 2019, a Policy decision was taken by the State Government to absorb contract employees, who already serving in District Disaster Management Center against the available vacancies. However, 2026:UHC:914-DB 3 petitioners were not absorbed in the service, despite the policy decision. 5. Learned State Counsel fairly submits that if petitioners have any grievance, then they can approach the Competent Authority by making a representation. 6. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to petitioners to make representation to the Competent Authority. If they make representation within three weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken as per law within four months thereafter. If petitioners are found entitled for regular appointment against the available vacancies, then necessary orders shall be passed within next two weeks. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 13.02.2026 PN/-