STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. PRAKASHI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3536 of 2017 dtd. 22/10/2018.

(2.) This case has had a checkered history. The writ petitioner (respondent herein) had earlier invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1600 of 2015 wherein he sought regularization of his services. He contended before this Court that, though he was engaged as a daily-wage labourer on 1/8/1981 and persons juniors to him were regularized, he was not extended the benefit of regularization.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed in the said writ petition, the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division-Bageshwar admitted, in Paragraph-3 thereof, that the respondent-writ petitioner was engaged as a daily wager in the Forest Department since 1/8/1981, and different works had been taken from him, from time to time, as per the availability of the budget and the nature of the work; there was no provision in the Forest Division for maintenance of the annual character roll of daily-wagers; in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, in State of U.P. vs. Putti Lal : (2006) 9 SCC 337, the Regularisation of Daily Wagers Rules, 2003 (for short the '2003 Regularisation Rules) were framed for one-time appointment of daily-wagers in Group 'D' posts for the purpose of regularization of their services; those who were appointed as daily-wagers in the Department prior to 29/6/1991, and were working regularly in the Department since then, were sought to be regularized against the vacant posts; the respondent-writ petitioner was not regularized in the year 2003 because, at that relevant point of time, he was not found eligible for regularization; thereafter, the Uttarakhand Government had framed the Daily Wagers, Work Charged, Contractual, Fixed Salaried, Temporary and Ad-hoc Appointed Employees Regularisation Rules, 2013 (for short the '2013 Regularisation Rules); in terms thereof, an eligibility list was prepared on the basis of seniority; the respondent-writ petitioner was at the top of the seniority list, and initiation of the process of regularization was proposed under Group 'D' posts in the near future. Except to state that, when the exercise of regularization was undertaken under the 2003 Regularisation Rules, the respondent-writ petitioner was not found eligible, the counter affidavit does not furnish details as to why the respondent-writ petitioner was not found eligible, though he had been appointed as a daily-wager as early as on 1/8/1981.