DHARMENDRA JOSHI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010113752021
2021:UHC:12515
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Service Single No. 1208 of 2021
th
08 September, 2026
Dharmendra Joshi --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and another --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Narain Dutt, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Petitioner has filed present writ petition
seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
consider the candidature of petitioner for regularizing the
service of petitioner on the post of Junior Assistant/
Computer Typist or any other equivalent post in the same
pay scale, taking into consideration the fact that the
petitioner has been working in the State Planning
Commission from last 32 years on ad hoc basis, with
effect from the date when the services of similarly
situated persons were regularized i.e. 17.05.2005.
2. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner was
initially engaged as a Typist on 04.11.1986 as a daily
wager and he joined in Hill Development Department of
State Planning Commission of State of Uttar Pradesh. He
continued to work on the said post till 22.07.1989.
Thereafter, petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis as
Junior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.500-800 in the
regional office of Hill Development Department, Almora
and he joined there on 25.07.1989. Vide order dated
23.03.1991, services of petitioner were put to an end by
the respondents but pursuant to the interim order dated
1
UKHC010113752021
2021:UHC:12515
22.04.1991 passed by the Lucknow Bench of Hon’ble
Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.2413 of 1991
(New WPSS No.513 of 2003) ( Dharmendra Joshi v. State
of U.P. ), petitioner was re-instated and he joined on the
said post of Junior Assistant on 23.12.1991. After
creation of State of Uttarakhand, the said writ petition
was transferred to Uttarakhand High Court which was
ultimately allowed by this Court vide judgment and order
dated 17.05.2005, whereby, the respondent –State was
directed to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of
Lower Division Assistant if the post and work are still
available in the office. It is undisputed that thereafter,
petitioner continued on the said post.
3. Petitioner contends that similarly situated
persons Ganesh Prasad Deorani, Dinesh Chandra Bhatt,
Harsh Mani Bhatt, Rajendra Prasad Gururani and
Chandra Singh Garia, who were working in the same
Department, were regularized pursuant to the
intervention of the High Court in the writ petitions filed
by those persons and vide order dated 27.07.2011, they
were regularized in service w.e.f. 17.05.2005. Petitioner
made a prayer for regularization on the post of Junior
Assistant from the date similarly situated persons were
regularized i.e. 17.05.2005.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent no.1, in paragraph no.3 whereof, it is stated
that petitioner was earlier offered regularization on the
post of Computer Typist on the basis of qualification held
by him, however, he did not agree to such proposal; by
his application dated 07.07.2011, he requested for
regularization on the post of Lower Division Assistant but
2
UKHC010113752021
2021:UHC:12515
due to non-possessing the necessary qualification for the
said post, he was not regularized. Thereafter, though the
petitioner acceded to the request for being regularized on
the post of Junior Assistant/ Computer Typist on
24.01.2019, but on the said date, there was no vacancy
available on the post of Computer Typist, and due to that
reason, petitioner was not regularized.
5. Since the respondent-State nowhere denied for
regularization of petitioner, therefore, vide order dated
04.11.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, Secretary of the Department was called
personally, and he was asked as to why regularization of
petitioner was not done. The Secretary sought time for
considering the regularization of petitioner, and later on,
instead of regularizing the petitioner, a response affidavit
was filed, in paragraph nos.23 and 24 whereof, it is
stated that the petitioner was not in possession of
educational qualification required for the post of Lower
Division Clerk/Junior Assistant even in the year 1993
when the rules were promulgated, whereas in the year
2019, petitioner informed that he possessed the required
educational qualification.
6. It is submitted by learned Counsel for
petitioner that in the communication between him and
the Department, the respondent-State has nowhere
denied regularization of petitioner, and it is for the first
time in the response affidavit filed in this petition, issue
of educational qualification of petitioner was raised,
however in letter dated 28.09.2017 (page no.96 of paper
book) which was written by Additional Secretary, State
Planning Commission to Deputy Secretary, Planning,
3
UKHC010113752021
2021:UHC:12515
U.K. Government, Dehradun, it is stated that petitioner
is having the qualification of Intermediate; it is also
stated that since regularization of similarly situated
persons was done at the level of government, therefore, in
the case of petitioner also, the decision can be taken at
the level of State Government.
7. Apart from this, in communication dated
31.08.2017 (paper no.93), the Additional Secretary of the
State Planning Commission strongly recommends that
the regularization of petitioner should be done in the
same manner as was done in the case of four other
persons namely Chandra Singh Gariya, Rajendra Prasad
Gururani, Ganesh Prasad Devrani and Dinesh Chandra
Bhatt w.e.f. 17.05.2005. The Additional Secretary found
the matter of petitioner to be similar to that of aforesaid
four persons, and he forwarded the case of petitioner to
the Deputy Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand for
petitioner’s regularization.
8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties
and having perused the documents and
correspondence(s) between the responsible officers of the
Government, this Court is of the view that nowhere
during the entire period, matter of regularization of
petitioner was denied, rather it was recommended several
times on the basis that petitioner’s case is similar to
other similarly situated persons who were regularized in
2011 w.e.f. 17.05.2005. But due to the reasons best
known to respondents, case of petitioner was not
considered constraining the petitioner to file present writ
petition.
4
UKHC010113752021
2021:UHC:12515
9. During pendency of present writ petition,
petitioner was superannuated on 30.09.2024. But the
retirement of petitioner cannot deny him the benefit of
longstanding service rendered by him in ad hoc capacity
with the respondent-Department since 04.11.1986 as
daily wager and since 25.07.1989 on ad hoc basis as
Junior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.500-800.
Petitioner spent his entire youth and life in the service of
the State Government.
10. In such view of the matter, writ petition is
allowed. The writ of mandamus is issued to respondents
to consider the case of petitioner for regularization on the
post of Typist or any other Class III post keeping in mind
the longstanding service rendered by petitioner firstly
w.e.f. 1986 as Typist and subsequently as Junior
Assistant from 25.07.1989, w.e.f. 17.05.2005 i.e. the date
when the similarly situated persons were regularized by
the respondent Department. The respondent-State shall
create a supernumerary post for said purpose, if post is
not available. Needless to say the petitioner shall get all
the admissible and consequential service benefits w.e.f.
17.05.2005.
11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
( .)
Pankaj Purohit, J
08.09.2026
Rdang
5