2026:UHC:3888 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Writ Petition Service Single No. 1527 of 2017 19 May, 2026 Janardan Yadav --Petitioner Versus Doiwala Sugar Company Ltd Doiwala District Dehradun Through Its Executive Director and another --Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Amar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is a seasonal employee serving in Doiwala Sugar Company Ltd. He is challenging order dated 17/24.05.2017, passed by Executive Director of the concerned Sugar Factory. By the said order, representation made by petitioner seeking permanent status was rejected by holding that petitioner is serving as Oilman and work of Oilman in the Sugar Mill is seasonal in nature, therefore, his claim for permanent status cannot be accepted. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17/24-5-2017 (Annexure-4) passed by 1 2026:UHC:3888 respondents ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to give fitment/ regularization to the petitioner on the post of Helper or in alternate on the post of Oilman from the date when his juniors were given fitment/ regularization.” 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner possesses certificate from Industrial Training Institute and he was engaged as Helper on daily wages in the Sugar Company w.e.f. 01.12.1993 and he is serving continuously ever since then. Thus, it is contended that after serving for more than 30 years in the Sugar Company, petitioner has earned the right to become a permanent employee. It is further contended that petitioner was given seasonal status, vide order dated 03.08.2013, and in that order, his status was described as ‘unskilled labourer’ in category-D. It is further contended that in the said order dated 03.08.2013, name of petitioner figures at Sl. No. 25 while persons, who are placed at Sl. No. 29, 33, 40, 42 & 50 were given permanent status in the year 2015. It is further contended that one Sri Jakir, who was appointed as Oilman in 2001 was given permanent status, vide order dated 06.05.2017 against the post of Helper, therefore petitioner can also be given similar benefit by conferring him permanent status as Helper, however, this aspect was completely overlooked by the Executive Director while taking decision on petitioner’s representation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready and willing to serve on any 2 2026:UHC:3888 Group-D post, including that of Helper and an affidavit to this effect has also been filed by him before this Court on 17.04.2026. 4. Per contra, Mr. T.A. Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that even though petitioner was originally discharging duties as Helper, however since 2011, he was serving as Helper with the Oilman and after 2013, he discharged duties as Oilman, therefore, he was given seasonal status/fitment on the post of Oilman in 2015. He further submits that State Government has imposed ban on fitment in Government owned Sugar Mills, therefore, it is not possible to grant permanent status to petitioner on the post of Oilman or any other Group-D post, including that of Helper. He further submits that there are only 14 sanctioned posts of Oilmen in the Sugar Mill, which are meant to be filled by seasonal employees. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order dated 03.08.2013 (Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit), whereby 54 daily-wage employees were given seasonal status in category-D, in support of his contention that all daily wage employees, including petitioner were categorized as ‘unskilled’. He submits that Oilman is classified as ‘semi-skilled’ as is revealed from the document enclosed as Annexure CA-3 and petitioner was designated as Oilman by the order dated 11.02.2015, which is enclosed with the counter affidavit as Annexure-CA3. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to a document enclosed as 3 2026:UHC:3888 Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 17.04.2026. By referring to that document, learned counsel for petitioner submits that one Mr. Jakir who was also appointed as Oilman in 2001 was given fitment on the post of Helper w.e.f. 06.05.2017, therefore, petitioner is also entitled to similar treatment and rejection of his claim only on the ground that he was discharging duties as Oilman, is therefore, unsustainable. 7. Learned counsel for the Sugar Company, however, submits that Mr. Jakir was not performing duty as Oilman and his designation was wrongly described as Oilman in the fitment order passed on 06.05.2017. 8. This Court is not impressed by said submission made by learned senior counsel appearing for the Sugar Company. In the fitment order, passed on 06.05.2017, designation of Mr. Jakir is mentioned as Oilman and he was given permanent status on the post of Helper. The contention that designation of Mr. Jakir was wrongly described in the said order cannot be accepted, as it is not the case of respondents that any amendment to that order was subsequently made by the Competent Authority. Petitioner’s status is described as ‘unskilled labourer’ and Oilman is categorized as ‘semi-skilled’, therefore, a reading of the order, whereby seasonal status was given to petitioner in 2013 indicates that till 2013, petitioner was having the status of Helper and not Oilman. Merely because petitioner was designated as Oilman in the order issued 4 2026:UHC:3888 in 2015, whereby he was given seasonal status, will not deprive him of the right, which he earned after serving as Helper for 22 long years. Thus, he is entitled to permanent status, as was given to Mr. Jakir. The order, whereby permanent status was given to Mr. Jakir indicates that he was discharging duties as Oilman earlier, and he was given permanent status on the post of Helper. Thus, petitioner is entitled to similar benefit. Rejection of petitioner’s claim, vide order dated 17/24.05.2017 is, therefore, erroneous. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The Executive Director, Doiwala Sugar Company Ltd. is directed to re-consider petitioner’s claim for permanent status on the post of Helper on the analogy of benefit given to Mr. Jakir and pass appropriate order, within six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Dt: 19TH May, 2026 Navin 5