Pre-regularization service cannot be counted for seniority, increments, or other consequential service benefits.

The petitioner was engaged as a Scientific Assistant in the Uttarakhand State Council for Science and Technology in 2012 and was subsequently regularized via an order dated June 1, 2022.

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant regular service benefits—including seniority, pay fixation, dearness allowance, annual increments, and gratuity—reckoned from the initial date of joining in 2012 rather than the date of regularization.

A total of 15 writ petitions involving identical issues were heard and decided together.

The respondents contended that the matter was already settled by a Division Bench judgment involving a similarly situated employee, Mr. Subhash Negi, whose claim for identical relief was dismissed.

1. Whether services rendered by an employee prior to the date of regularization can be counted for the purposes of seniority, pay fixation, and other consequential service benefits.

The Court applied the principle of judicial precedence and the doctrine of binding nature of higher bench decisions.

Specifically, it relied on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court in Subhash Negi v. State (WPSB No. 577 of 2025).

The rule established therein holds that employees regularized after a period of contractual or temporary service are not entitled to claim that their pre-regularization service be treated as regular service for the purpose of service benefits.

The Court found that the issue raised by the petitioners was no longer res integra as it had been specifically addressed by a Division Bench in WPSB No. 577 of 2025.

The Court noted that the petitioner in the cited case, Mr. Subhash Negi, was also regularized in 2022 alongside the present petitioners and had sought the same relief based on identical pleadings.

Since the Division Bench had already dismissed the claim for counting pre-regularization service, the Single Judge held that the petitioners could not be granted any relief.

The Court concluded that there was substance in the respondent's submission that the current petitions were squarely covered by the negative holding of the higher bench.

The petitions were disposed of in accordance with the judgment dated February 26, 2026, rendered in WPSB No. 577 of 2025.