2026:UHC:3547 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS/ 2 3 7 6 / 2 0 1 5 W it h W PSS/ 2 3 7 9 / 2 0 1 5 W PSS/ 2 3 8 0 / 2 0 1 5 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Additional CSC for the State. Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for UPNL. 1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these are being heard and decided together. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of Writ Petition (SS) No. 2376 of 2015, alone are being considered and discussed. 2. Petitioners were serving on contract through outsourcing agency, namely, UPNL, in Directorate of Soldier Welfare against different Group ‘C’ post. 3. According to them, they have served for more than two decades continuously to the satisfaction of all authorities concerned; however, their claim is not being considered for regularisation. 4. In these petitions, petitioners have challenged clause No. 1 ¼M½ added in the communication dated 17.12.2007 by Director, Soldier Welfare Department. 5. They have also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider their claim for regularisation under Uttarakhand Regularisation 2026:UHC:3547 Rules, 2013. 6. By the impugned communication, status of the petitioners was changed from contract employee to outsourced employee. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since petitioners have served for more than two decades, therefore they have earned a right to be considered for regularisation, in view of the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo and others Vs. U.O.I., reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and in the case of Bhola Nath and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported as 2026 INSC 99. 8. Learned State Counsel submits that since petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to regularise their services, therefore it would be appropriate if petitioners are asked to approach competent authority. 9. Writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to petitioners to make representation to the competent authority regarding their regularisation. If they make representation within three weeks, decision thereupon shall be taken as per law, within four months thereafter. 10. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 08.05.2026 Mahinder/ 2026:UHC:3547