The Uttarakhand High Court set aside an order that forced a long-serving contractual library employee to shift to an outsourcing agency, and directed her regularisation under the State’s service rules, underscoring the protection afforded to contractual staff who meet statutory tenure criteria.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Poonam Bahuguna, was engaged as a contractual employee with the Advocate General’s Office (respondent no.2) in Nainital in July 2007, working in the library as a Junior Assistant (Contract). She received the minimum pay scale of a regular Class-III employee from 2010 onward. On 16 October 2023, the respondent issued an order requiring her to enrol with an outsourcing agency, threatening automatic termination of services if she failed to comply.
Key Facts
- July 2007: Commenced service as Junior Assistant (Contract) in the library of respondent no.2.
- 08 December 2009: Submitted application that led to her contractual engagement.
- 2010 onward: Received minimum pay scale of a regular Class-III employee.
- 07 July 2023: Law Secretary issued an order indicating that regularisation of the petitioner was under process.
- 16 October 2023: Impugned order directing enrolment with outsourcing agency; notice dated 31 October 2023.
- 04 December 2018: Cut-off date under the 2025 amendment rules for regularisation after ten years of continuous service.
- 10 September 2025: Coordinating Bench of the Court disposed of the petitioner’s claim for regularisation.
- 24 August 2026: Judgment delivered.
Procedural History
- 16 Oct 2023: Respondent no.2 issued order directing outsourcing enrolment, with notice dated 31 Oct 2023.
- 24 Aug 2026: Writ Petition Service Single No. 2121 of 2023 filed by petitioner, seeking quash of the order and regularisation.
- 24 Aug 2026: Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Justice Pankaj Purohit.
The Parties' Positions
- Petitioner: Argues continuous service since 2007, eligibility for regularisation under the Uttarakhand Advocate General Office Establishment (Service of Employees) Rules, 2013 as amended in 2025, and that the outsourcing order is illegal and arbitrary.
- Respondent No.1 (State): Claims no post of Assistant Librarian is sanctioned and that the Advocate General lacks power to regularise.
- Respondent No.2 (Advocate General): Asserts regularisation is pending per Law Secretary’s order and disputes the petitioner’s claim of uninterrupted service.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks quash of the 16 Oct 2023 order and the accompanying notice, and a mandamus directing her regularisation as Assistant Librarian or Junior Assistant (Class-III) in the Advocate General’s Office.
The Legal Issue
Whether the order dated 16 October 2023 directing the petitioner to enrol with an outsourcing agency is illegal and arbitrary, and whether the petitioner is entitled to regularisation under the Uttarakhand Advocate General Office Establishment (Service of Employees) Rules, 2013 as amended in 2025, having completed the requisite ten-year continuous service by the cut-off date of 04 December 2018.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- Continuous service since July 2007, as admitted by respondent no.2, satisfies the ten-year requirement under the 2025 amendment rules.
- The Advocate General is the appointing authority for the post of Junior Assistant under the 2013 Rules, thus empowered to regularise.
- The outsourcing order is arbitrary, violates principles of natural justice, and is contrary to the statutory regularisation scheme.
For the Respondents
- Assert that no post of Assistant Librarian is sanctioned in the office, rendering the petitioner’s specific demand untenable.
- Claim the Advocate General lacks authority to order regularisation, contending that such power resides with the State Government.
- Emphasise that regularisation was already under process per the Law Secretary’s order of 07 July 2023.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the Uttarakhand Advocate General Office Establishment (Service of Employees) Rules, 2013, as amended in 2025, focusing on the cut-off date of 04 December 2018 for regularisation of daily-wage, contract and part-time employees who have completed ten years of continuous service. The petitioner's service record, corroborated by the noting sheet of the Advocate General, established uninterrupted employment from July 2007, thereby satisfying the ten-year criterion well before the cut-off date.
The Court held that the Advocate General is the appointing authority for the post of Junior Assistant under the 2013 Rules, and consequently possesses the power to regularise such employees. The contention that the Advocate General lacks such authority was rejected, as the Rules expressly vest appointing powers in the Advocate General for the concerned cadre.
Regarding the impugned order of 16 October 2023, the Court observed that directing a contractual employee to shift to an outsourcing agency, without any statutory basis, amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power and violates the principles of natural justice. The order was therefore illegal and could not stand.
"Impugned order dated 16.10.2023 along with notice date d 31.10.2023 is quashed qua petitioner only."
The Court further noted that the State’s argument about the absence of an Assistant Librarian post was irrelevant, as the petitioner was also willing to be regularised in any Class-III post, including Junior Assistant, which is sanctioned. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the respondent was directed to consider regularisation within a stipulated period.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 16 October 2023 and the notice dated 31 October 2023 are quashed. Respondent no.2 is directed to consider the petitioner’s regularisation as Junior Assistant in the library or any Class-III post in the Advocate General’s Office within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. All pending applications stand disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Contractual Employees Gain Statutory Protection
- Courts will rigorously enforce the tenure criteria laid down in service rules before permitting termination or conversion to outsourcing.
- Continuous service records, even if contractual, are decisive in establishing eligibility for regularisation.
Authority of the Advocate General Clarified
- The Advocate General is confirmed as the appointing authority for Junior Assistant posts under the 2013 Rules, empowering her to regularise eligible employees.
- Reliance on vague administrative discretion without statutory backing will not withstand judicial scrutiny.
Outsourcing Orders Must Have Legal Basis
- Any order compelling a contractual employee to shift to an outsourcing agency must be grounded in explicit statutory or rule-based authority; otherwise, it will be deemed arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
- Practitioners should advise clients to challenge such orders promptly, citing the relevant service rules and tenure requirements.
