Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8582 (UTT)

Suresh Chandra v. State Of Uttarakhand

2026-01-06

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2026
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization taking into consideration the 30 years service of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher, LT Grade (Science/Mathematics) ignoring the alleged decision dated 30.05.2012 of the regularization committee. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the entire service benefit to the petitioner treating him to be regular in service. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was inducted as an Assistant Teacher, in LT Grade (Science/Mathematics) on adhoc basis on 30.11.1990, and posted in different places and retired from service on 30.06.2020. After retirement, the petitioner was given benefit of academic session and permitted to work till 30.03.2021. Before retirement, in the year 2006, the petitioner make a request for his regularization on the ground that other similarly situated persons have already been regularized. In the meantime, what has happened the Principal of the College lodged a first information report against the petitioner wherein he was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 353, 186, 504 and 506 IPC, in which after taking cognizance the petitioner faced the trial and then acquitted, however, the order of acquittal was never been challenged and during this period there was a break of 14 days in service of the petitioner and based on fourteen days break in service the claim of the petitioner for regularization was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner for regularization was rejected on the ground that there was a break of 14 days in service. Learned counsel further submits that 14 days’ break in service cannot be treated as a break rather it is an artificial break and for the purpose of the regularization 14 days’ break in service will not come into way. In reference to this learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Vinod Prakash and others Vs. In reference to this learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Vinod Prakash and others Vs. State of U.P and others decided on 01.08.2006 and also on another judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Ram Santosh vs. State of U.P. and other decided on 26.04.2016. She further submits that because of the artificial break, the other consequential benefits, increment and time scale of the petitioner has also been declined. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that infact 14 days break in service were not verified by the Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Garhkhet due to personal enmity and the entire 30 years of services of the petitioner is un-blemished and for the entire period of 30 years there is no adverse entry even no disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner. Moreover, the complaint made by the then Principal against the petitioner was rejected on merit by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and incident was found to be dubious. She further submits that other similarly situated person, have been regularized whereas the case of the petitioner has been rejected only due to the 14 days break in services. Learned counsel submits that the decision of the regularization committee dated 30.05.2012 was never been communicated to the petitioner, moreover, there was no disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner for the alleged absence from 4 th April 2007 to 17 th April 2007. She also submits that due to the said action of the respondents, petitioner’s case was also not considered for grade pay, selection grade or promotional pay scale and the matter regarding pension and gratuity is also withheld. 5. On the other side, the counsel for the State Mr. Tarun Mohan, learned Brief Holder has not disputed that the claim of the petitioner for regularization was rejected since there was 14 days break in service and the communication in this regard was communicated to the petitioner in the year 2012. He submits that in the service book the petitioner is shown to be absent for 14 days and this period cannot be taken into account for continuity in the service, and, as such, the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected. 6. He submits that in the service book the petitioner is shown to be absent for 14 days and this period cannot be taken into account for continuity in the service, and, as such, the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected. 6. In response to the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner rendered 30 years in the service and 14 days break is in fact is not a break in the eye of the law and should be treated to be an artificial break and it does not disentitle the petitioner from regularization particularly when other similarly situated incumbents have been regularized. She argued that action of the respondent denying benefit of regularization merely on the ground that there is a break of 14 days in service is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and hit by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Undisputedly, there is no dispute that the claim of the petitioner for regularization was denied merely on the ground of 14 days’ break in service. The petitioner was inducted in service in the year 1990 and continued till his superannuation except 14 days break in service due to ending criminal trial in which he was acquitted. Admittedly, there is no quarrel that the petitioner was inducted in the year 1990 and he has rendered more than 30 years of service and, rejecting claim of regularization due to 14 days break in service appears to be arbitrary and illegal. Even otherwise long continuity in service cannot be ignored in totality and merely on the ground that there is break of 14 days in service the claim of the petitioner for regularization cannot be rejected, therefore, this Court holds that 14 days break in service is nothing but an artificial break and it will not come in the way for considering the claim of regularization. The action of the respondent treating 14 days break in service is held to be arbitrary, unreasonable, consequently, the action of the respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization is also held to be illegal, unjust and improper and the decision, as such, is hereby quashed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The action of the respondent treating 14 days break in service is held to be arbitrary, unreasonable, consequently, the action of the respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization is also held to be illegal, unjust and improper and the decision, as such, is hereby quashed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization by ignoring 14 days break in service by treating it to be an artificial one and take decision by a reasoned and speaking order after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass an order positively within a month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that while taking decision, the respondents shall take into account that other similarly situated candidates have been regularized which has not been disputed by the respondents in their counter affidavit and while taking decision the respondent shall also take decision with regard to the consequential benefit including post retiral benefits. 10. No order as to costs.