Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 349 (UTT)

Pawan Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-07-15

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners seek following reliefs, among others: i. Issue a writ, rule or direction in the nature of mandamus or declaration directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization under the 2013 Rules or for classification them as permanent workers as per law keeping in view of their permanent and perennial and substantive nature of work and further to consider their case for regular pay and other benefits at par to the other computer operators of State Govt. Departments or in alternate, the respondents be directed to create posts of computer operators for the purpose of land revenue records and to treat the petitioners as regular against those posts along with all consequential benefits and till such exercise the respondents be directed to pay the same pay and other benefits to the petitioners as at par to the regular employees by applying principles of equal pay for equal work. ii. Issue a writ, rule or direction in the nature of certiorari or any suitable writ to quash the term used in the Govt. Order for appointment to the post of Data Entry Operator/Computer Operator through outsourcing agency in District Dehradun, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar and to declare the same illegal and discriminating after calling the entire records along with its effect and operation also and further to command the respondents to issue orders for regular appointment of Data Entry Operator/Computer Operator in District Dehradun, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar and all other Tehsils at par to the other Tehsils in which the regular appointment is made. iii. Issue writ, rule or direction by declaring that the policy of the Govt. for making appointment in the State Govt. Departments through UPNL and PRD and also through any outsourcing agency against a permanent and perennial work and by keeping these persons the employees on a meager wages and permitting the commission to the outsourcing agency from the salary of these employees is an act of unfair labour practice and exploitation of the workers and to declare all the Govt. Departments through UPNL and PRD and also through any outsourcing agency against a permanent and perennial work and by keeping these persons the employees on a meager wages and permitting the commission to the outsourcing agency from the salary of these employees is an act of unfair labour practice and exploitation of the workers and to declare all the Govt. Orders as nonest and in-operative and further to declare that in absence of any license/registration under CLR Act, the aforesaid induction of UPNL and PRD is illegal, camouflage, sham and bogus and all the employees are under the direct employment of the respective department where they are working. 2. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent State is taken on record. Delay in filing the same is condoned. Application CLMA no. 6152 of 2016 made therefor is disposed of. 3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners for regularization has been duly recommended by the Commissioner, Garhwal Division and the matter has been sent to the Board of Revenue. 4. After arguing the writ petition at some length, learned counsel for the petitioners confined their prayer only to the extent that treating the present writ petition as representation, the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand be directed to decide the said representation, in accordance with law, at an early date. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the State is not averse to such prayer of the petitioner. 6. The prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners is innocuous and worth accepting: 7. The writ petition is disposed of by directing the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand (respondent no. 2 herein) to treat the present writ petition as representation of the petitioners and decide the same in accordance with law, at the earliest possible, but not later than six weeks’ from the date of production of certified copy of this order along with copy of the writ petition before said authority. [Interim relief application no. 1527 of 2016 as well as urgency application no. 3047 of 2016 both stands disposed of.]