2026:UHC:3751 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/ 1 4 5 / 2 0 2 1 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate and Mr. Sagar Malara, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: “I|-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. II. Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to grant the minimum of pay scale to the petitioners, working under their respective posts of appointment. 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. III- 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 regularization rules.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are serving in Uttarakhand Institute of Rural Development and Punchayati Raj for the last more than two decades, therefore, they have earned the right to get minimum of pay scale, and also regularisation. 4. Learned State Counsel, however, submits 2026:UHC:3751 that petitioners were engaged through outsourcing agency and there is no direct employer-employee relationship between the State and the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that petitioners were initially engaged as daily wagers and subsequently their status was changed to that of outsourced employees. In support of his contention that petitioners have earned certain rights, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, as well in the case of Jaggo (Jaggu) Vs. Union of India and others,. 6. Be that as it may, since petitioners have rendered long service in the department, therefore, writ petition is disposed of by permitting petitioners to make separate representations. It shall be open to them to raise all their grievances in said representations. 7. If petitioners make such representation within two weeks, decision thereupon shall be taken by the competent authority as per law, within ten weeks thereafter. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 15.05.2026 Mahinder/