2026:UHC:3951 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS/ 8 7 1 / 2 0 2 1 w it h W PSS/ 8 6 7 / 2 0 2 1 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. Siddhartha Singh Negi, Advocate for the petitioners. 2. Ms. Mamta Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the State/ respondent nos. 1 to 3. 3. Ms. Deeksha Arya, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Anup Kumar Verma, Advocate for respondent no. 4. 4. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions, therefore, they are being heard and decided together. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPSS No. 871 of 2021 alone are being considered and discussed. 5. Petitioner was engaged on daily wage in Nagar Palika Parishad, Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar for discharging duties against Group-C post, in the year 1987. He made representation for regularising his service. The representation was rejected by the Executive Officer concerned, vide order dated 03.02.2021, which is under challenge in this writ petition. The only reason assigned for rejecting petitioner’s claim is that petitioner was engaged in the absence of there being a sanctioned post. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the reason assigned is unsustainable, in view of law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 2026:UHC:3951 Jaggo v. Union of India, reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, reported as 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129. He further submits that the Regularisation Rules, framed in 2013, were amended in 2025 and the cut-off date indicated in the earlier Rules has now been extended. He thus submits that petitioners’ case is now covered by the Rules and also the judgments rendered by Apex Court, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 7. The reason assigned for rejecting petitioners’ claim for regularisation does not appear to be proper. Since petitioners in both of writ petitions were engaged in Nagar Palika Parishad before 1990 and both of them have put in more than 35 years of service, therefore, rejection of their claim for regularisation only on the ground that no sanctioned post was available at the time of their initial engagement does not appear to be proper. The view taken is also contrary to the law declared by Apex Court in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India (supra). 8. Accordingly, the rejection orders dated 03.02.2021, impugned in both the writ petitions, are set aside. The writ petitions are allowed; the competent authority is directed to re-consider petitioners’ claim for regularisation, as per law, within ten weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. ( Man oj Kum ar Tiw ar i, J.) 20.05.2026 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a1 31bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56 D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.05.20 18:46:34 +05'30'