The high court of Uttarakhand passed a judgement on Veronica Lal and others v. state of Uttarakhand and others (Special appeal no. 55 of 2019) . this case was presided over by Honourable justice Mr. R C Khulbe and Honourable justice Mr. Ramesh Ranganathan
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioners, who seek leave to prefer an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 154 of 2017 and 155 of 2017 dated 17.04.2018, are all employees appointed on contractual basis during the years 2006-08. Regularization Rules, 2013, for persons employed on daily-wages or work-charge or on contract or on fix-pay or part-time or on ad-hoc basis, were notified by the State of Uttarakhand on 30.12.2013. These rules permit regularization of those who have completed five years of continuous employment on the date of commencement of the rules i.e. all those who were appointed by the State of Uttarakhand on or before 30.12.2008, and have worked continuously thereafter, were eligible to have their services regularized under the 2013 Rules.
Amendment to the 2013 Rules were effected, by way of a notification dated 14.12.2016, i.e. the Regularization (Amendment) Rules, 2016. Thereunder all those who were appointed on contractual, daily-wages, part-time, work-charge, fix-pay basis etc on or before 31.12.2011 were entitled to seek for regularization of their services, if they had served continuously for five years before 31.12.2016.The 2016 Regulations were under challenge in WPSS No. 154 and 155 of 2017; and the learned Single Judge, by his order dated 17.04.2018, struck down these rules relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. The learned Single Judge, however, made an exception of certain categories of employees,
Leave to appeal would be granted, against the order of the learned Single Judge, only if the applicants are held to persons aggrieved. Since Shri Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, would submit that all the applicants fall within the ambit of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, in paragraph no. 26 of the said order, they cannot be said to be persons aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, as they claim protection thereunder. While they may be persons affected, if the 2013 Regulations were also to be struck down, as they were all appointed before 30.12.2008, their remedy is only to intervene in the Writ Petition wherein the validity of the 2013 Regulations are under challenge.
Even if, as is now contended before us by Shri Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, the Government takes any decision despite the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in paragraph no.26 of his judgment, it is always open to the applicants to avail their legal remedies against any such action taken by the Government. That would, however, not justify their being granted leave to prefer an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, since they cannot be said to be aggrieved thereby.
We see no reason, therefore, to grant leave to appeal. Subject to the observations aforementioned, the application seeking leave to appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently all the connected appeals/applications are also dismissed. No costs.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ANANTH PAI