Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 14 (UTT)

HEERA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2016-01-07

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioners before this Court are Data Entry Operators, who are working in a project known as “Serva Shiksha Abhiyan” under the Central Government sponsored scheme. The petitioners claim regularization on these posts. 2. In the counter affidavit, the State Government has taken an objection that under the Regularization Rules though a contractual employee (such as the present petitioners) can be regularized only if they are working on the regular substantive vacancy. Admittedly the present posts, on which the petitioners are working, are not permanent substantive vacancies. These are the posts of a project, which are wholly temporary, and therefore, the petitioners cannot be regularized on these posts. Since the posts on which the petitioners are working are not regular substantive posts, there is no occasion to regularize the services of the petitioners on these posts. 3. This Court has been informed that there are two categories of employees working in this project, firstly, the employees of the State Government, who are working on deputation on this project and secondly, persons like petitioners on consolidated salary on contract. Therefore, there is no question of regularization the services of the petitioners. To that extend the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 4. There is another prayer of the petitioners that there was a proposal to increase the consolidated salary of the petitioners from Rs. 5,500/- per month to Rs. 10,164/- per month. This Court has been informed that this proposal, however, has already been rejected by the State Government vide order dated 09.03.2015, which is annexed as annexure No. 2 to the counter affidavit. All it says is that in the case of the petitioners consolidated salary cannot be increased, as they have not been outsourced from Uttarakhand Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. 5. This Court is of the view that this cannot be a ground for denying the petitioners to enhance consolidated salary i.e. Rs. 10,164/- per month, as is being given to other similarly situated persons from Uttarakhand Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam (in short “UPNL”). 6. In view thereof, the writ petitions stand disposed with a direction to the respondents to pay consolidated salary @ Rs.10,164/- per month, as is being given to UPNL candidate in pursuance to the memorandum dated 31.01.2013 in accordance with law.