NOOR HASSAN vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010027042024

2026:UHC:9419-DB


HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Special Appeal No. 51 of 2024



Noor Hassan … Appellant


Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others … Respondents

Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. B.S. Parihar, Additional CSC, for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Ishwari Datt Paliwal, Additional CSC, for the State of U.P.

With
Special Appeal No. 372 of 2024


State of Uttarakhand & Others … Appellants


Versus

Noor Hassan & Others … Respondents


Mr. B.S. Parihar, Additional CSC, for the appellants/State of
Uttarakhand.

Mr. Ishwari Datt Paliwal, Additional CSC, for the State of U.P.

Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, for the private respondent.





J U D G M E N T



Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.
Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

(Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.)




Writ petitioner as well as respondent no. 1 to

4 in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3377 of 2018 have filed
separate intra-court appeals challenging the judgment
and order dated 15.2.2024, passed by learned Single
Judge in the said writ petition. Since issues involved are
common, therefore both are heard and decided
together. By the impugned judgment, competent
1

UKHC010027042024

2026:UHC:9419-DB
authority was directed to regularize services of writ
petitioner on the post of Tube Well Operator in
Irrigation Department under the Regularization Rules of
2011. A direction was also issued to the authorities to
pay all service benefits to writ petitioner, which were
due to him, as per the award rendered by learned
Labour Court. Relevant extract of the impugned
judgment is reproduced below:
“ 11. I have given a thoughtful consideration to
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties, so far as the applicability of the Rules of 1996 in
the case of petitioner is concerned, I do not find any force
in the aforesaid submission and the same is rejected,
simply for the reason that the Rules of 2011 have been
framed by the State of Uttarakhand in supersession of all
the existing Rules and Orders framed and promulgated in
relation to the regularization of daily wager, work charge,
contractual, fixed pay, part time and ad-hoc employees.
This Court is of the view that even if the Rules of 2011,
which has been promulgated by the State of Uttarakhand
regarding regularization of the daily wager, work charge,
fixed salary, part time and ad-hoc appointee, the part time
services would also be regularized, if a person is on part
time service, ten years prior to the cut off date 01.11.2011
as per Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2011. If the controversy is
looked into at this angle that the petitioner was reinstated
by virtue of the judgment and award dated 13.06.2011
passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haridwar he
shall be deemed to be regular in service as part time Tube-
Well Operator with respondents and in that view of the
matter, he shall be deemed to be in continuation part time
service with effect from 05.05.1982 and in this way, the
petitioner qualified ten years service required for his
regularization. He was engaged as part time Tube-Well
Operator before 01.11.2001.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned office memorandum dated 26.05.2018 is hereby
quashed. The petitioner is directed to be regularized as
Tube-Well Operator with the respondentsIrrigation
Department immediately under Regularization Rules of
2011. The mandamus is also issued directing the
respondents to pay all service benefits to the petitioner as
he is entitled under the law except the back wages as
directed by the Labour Court.”

2

UKHC010027042024

2026:UHC:9419-DB
2. There is delay of 271 days in filing Special
Appeal No. 372 of 2024, preferred by State of
Uttarakhand, which is not being seriously opposed.
Accordingly, for the reasons indicated, delay
condonation application ((IA/1/2024) is allowed. Delay
is condoned.

3. Special Appeal No. 51 of 2024 is filed by the
writ petitioner, who contends that since he was
appointed as Tube Well Operator w.e.f. 5.5.1982,
therefore, he is entitled for regularization under the U.P.
Irrigation Department Regularization of Part Time Tube
Well Operators on the post of Tube Well Operators
Rules, 1996 and learned Single Judge erred in directing
writ petitioner’s regularization under the Regularization
Rules framed by State of Uttarakhand in the year 2011.
It is contended that since the Labour Court decided the
dispute raised by writ petitioner and held that he is
entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service,
therefore, for all practical purposes, it shall be deemed
that he was continuing in service from 5.5.1982 and his
regularization should date back to 1996, when the
Regularization Rules were framed by Sate of U.P.

4. In para 11 of the impugned judgment,
contention raised by the writ petitioner is considered
and discussed and it was held that since the successor
State of Uttarakhand has framed separate
Regularization Rules in 2011 in supersession of the
rules earlier framed on the subject, therefore, the rules
framed by State of U.P. in the year 1996 cannot be
pressed into service for claiming regularization in State
3

UKHC010027042024

2026:UHC:9419-DB
of Uttarakhand, especially when separate rules were
framed by State of Uttarakhand on the subject.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for State of
Uttarakhand, however, submits that though the writ
petitioner was engaged as Part-Time Tube Well Operator
on 5.5.1982, however, his services were terminated on
8.8.1985; he slept over the matter for 24 long years
and raised an industrial dispute only in 2009, which was
referred for adjudication to Labour Court, Haridwar and
the Labour Court decided the dispute in favour of writ
petitioner by giving an award on 13.6.2011. He submits
that Labour Court denied back wages to writ petitioner
and directed only for his reinstatement with continuity
of service. Learned State Counsel submits that since
writ petitioner was out of employment between 1985 to
2011 and he was reinstated in service only on
21.6.2013, therefore, the direction issued by learned
Single Judge to regularize him in service, as per
Regularization Rules framed in the year 2011 is
unsustainable. It is thus contended that regularization
can be claimed only by a person who is continuously in
service, while writ petitioner was not continuing in
service after 1985.

6. We are not inclined to interfere with the
judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge.
The contention raised by the writ petitioner that he is
entitled to regularization w.e.f. 1996 under 1996 Rules
is unsustainable for the reason that in 1996, he was out
of employment and had not approached any forum
against termination of his service. He claimed
4

UKHC010027042024

2026:UHC:9419-DB
regularization only upon his reinstatement, pursuant to
award rendered by learned Labour Court on 13.6.2011.
By that time, State was reorganized and State of
Uttarakhand had framed separate rules for
regularization in 2011, in supersession of the earlier
Regularization Rules framed in 1996. Thus reliance
placed upon 1996 Rules by the writ petitioner was
rightly not accepted by learned Single Judge.

7. Even otherwise also, as per scheme of the
Regularization Rules, 1996, regularization is not
automatic and a selection committee has to be
constituted and persons whose name figure in the list
prepared by selection committee alone are to be given
benefit of regularization by the appointing authority.
Thus service of ad hoc/part-time employees is to be
regularized only after their claim is considered by
selection committee and on the recommendation of
selection committee, they are to be regularized. Rule
6(1) of 1996 Rules provides that persons regularized
under the said rules shall be entitled to seniority only
from the date of order of their appointment after
selection, in accordance with those rules. Since under
1996 Rules, regularization is not automatic but is
contingent upon selection by the selection committee
and writ petitioner staked claim for regularization only
in the year 2013, therefore, even if the Regularization
Rules of 1996 were invoked for his regularization, it
would not have made any difference and regularization,
if given under 1996 Rules, would also be effective only
from the date of passing of regularization order. Thus
whatever was due to the writ petitioner has been
5

UKHC010027042024

2026:UHC:9419-DB
granted to him by learned Single Judge.

8. We do not find force in the grounds taken by
State of Uttarakhand for challenging the judgment
rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S)
No. 3377 of 2018. After the award rendered by learned
Labour Court, whereby termination of services of Noor
Hassan (writ petitioner) was declared to be illegal and it
was provided that he shall be entitled to reinstatement
with continuity of service, it shall be deemed that he
continued to serve as Part-Time Tube Well Operator
throughout. Thus the view taken by learned Single
Judge that he shall be deemed to be serving before
1.11.2011 by legal fiction, in terms of the award
rendered by learned Labour Court, cannot be faulted.

9. Thus there is no scope for interference with
the impugned judgment and order. Both Special
Appeals fail and are dismissed. We hope and trust that
regularization order, effective from due date, in terms
of the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge,
shall be issued within four weeks from today, if already
not issued.





(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.)

13.10.2026
Pr
PRABODH KUMAR

Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957 BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.10.16 19:57:14 +05'30'
6