The Uttarakhand High Court has clarified that courts cannot directly order regularization of services where statutory rules are under judicial stay. Instead, the proper remedy is to grant liberty to affected employees to file fresh representations before the employer, ensuring procedural fairness and administrative discretion are preserved.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the refusal of the Uttarakhand State Warehousing Corporation (appellant) to regularize the services of Pramod Kumar and others (respondents nos. 1 & 2), who had been working in temporary or contractual capacities for several years. The respondents had applied for regularization under the Uttarakhand State Warehousing Corporation Regularization Rules, 2016. The Corporation rejected their applications by order dated 28.06.2017, citing that the Regularization Rules, 2016, had been stayed by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 154/2017 dated 24.01.2017.
Key Facts
- Respondents nos. 1 & 2 were engaged on contractual basis in various capacities with the appellant-Corporation from dates not specified in the judgment but extending over multiple years prior to 2017
- The Regularization Rules, 2016, were notified on 15.01.2016 and came into force on 01.02.2016
- Writ Petition (S/S) No. 154/2017 was filed challenging the validity of the 2016 Rules and was stayed by order dated 24.01.2017
- The Corporation rejected regularization applications of respondents on 28.06.2017 on the ground that the 2016 Rules were under stay
- Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3495/2018 was filed by respondents before the Single Judge seeking quashing of the rejection order and direct regularization
- On 14.03.2024, the Single Judge quashed the 28.06.2017 order and directed the Corporation to regularize the services of respondents nos. 1 & 2
- The final order in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 616/2018, dated 22.02.2024, amended the Regularization Rules in limited respects and lifted the earlier stay
Procedural History
- 15.01.2016: Regularization Rules, 2016, notified
- 01.02.2016: Regularization Rules, 2016, came into force
- 24.01.2017: Stay order passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 154/2017
- 28.06.2017: Corporation rejected regularization applications of respondents
- 2018: Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3495/2018 filed before Single Judge
- 14.03.2024: Single Judge quashed rejection order and directed regularization
- 22.02.2024: Final judgment delivered in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 616/2018, amending the 2016 Rules and lifting the stay
- 08.05.2026: Special Appeal decided by Division Bench
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant-Corporation
The Corporation argued that while the stay on the 2016 Rules had merged into the final order dated 22.02.2024, the Single Judge erred in directly ordering regularization without affording the Corporation an opportunity to examine the respondents’ eligibility under the amended rules. It emphasized that respondents had breaks in service and did not meet the criteria under the 2013 Rules, as amended on 05.12.2025. The Corporation stated it had no objection to considering their cases under the revised framework but was never given a chance to present facts before the writ court.
For the Respondents
The respondents’ counsel conceded that direct regularization was not the appropriate remedy. He sought modification of the Single Judge’s order to allow respondents to file fresh representations before the Corporation, with a specified timeline for decision.
Relief Sought
The respondents sought direct regularization of their services with consequential benefits including pay fixation, pension eligibility, and seniority. The appellant sought setting aside of the Single Judge’s order directing regularization.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a court may directly order regularization of services when the applicable regularization rules were previously under judicial stay, or whether the proper remedy is to grant liberty to the employee to file a fresh representation before the employer under the revised rules.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant argued that the Single Judge’s order violated the principle of separation of powers by usurping administrative discretion. It relied on the doctrine that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the employer where statutory rules exist and are under revision. The Corporation emphasized that the final judgment dated 22.02.2024 had modified the 2016 Rules, and the respondents’ eligibility had to be assessed afresh under the amended provisions, which the Corporation was never permitted to do.
For the Respondent
The respondents’ counsel accepted that direct regularization was inappropriate. He supported the appellant’s position that the matter should be remitted to the Corporation for fresh consideration under the amended 2013 Rules, as modified on 05.12.2025, and requested a fixed timeline for decision to prevent undue delay.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench observed that the Single Judge’s order, while well-intentioned, overstepped judicial boundaries by mandating a specific administrative outcome. The Court noted that the Regularization Rules, 2016, had been stayed since 2017, and the final judgment dated 22.02.2024 had not merely lifted the stay but introduced substantive amendments. The Corporation, therefore, had not been afforded an opportunity to evaluate the respondents’ claims under the revised criteria.
"The Court cannot, in the guise of judicial review, direct regularization of services without allowing the employer to apply its mind to the eligibility criteria as amended by the final order."
The Bench emphasized that the doctrine of audi alteram partem requires that an administrative body be given a fair opportunity to consider facts and evidence before a binding decision is made. Directly ordering regularization deprived the Corporation of this right. The Court further held that the respondents’ rights were not extinguished; they remained entitled to seek regularization under the amended rules, provided they were given a fair opportunity to present their case.
The Court also noted that the respondents had not been afforded any hearing or opportunity to submit documents supporting their claim of continuous service or eligibility under the 2013 Rules, as amended. The absence of such a process rendered the Single Judge’s order procedurally flawed.
The Verdict
The Special Appeal was allowed. The order of the Single Judge dated 14.03.2024 was set aside to the extent it directed direct regularization. Respondents nos. 1 & 2 were granted liberty to file fresh representations with supporting evidence within four weeks, along with an attested copy of this order. The appellant-Corporation was directed to pass a speaking order on the representations within a further period of four weeks. If regularization is granted, respondents shall be entitled to consequential benefits including pay fixation, seniority, and pension eligibility, calculated from the date of regularization. All pending applications were disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Fresh Representation Is the Correct Remedy
- Practitioners must now argue that courts should not direct regularization directly when statutory rules are under judicial revision
- The appropriate relief is to set aside direct orders and grant liberty to file fresh representations under amended rules
- This preserves administrative discretion while safeguarding employee rights
Timelines Are Enforceable
- Courts may now impose binding timelines for decision on representations (e.g., 4 weeks for filing, 4 weeks for decision)
- Failure to comply may lead to contempt proceedings or further judicial intervention
- Practitioners should cite this judgment to oppose indefinite delays in service regularization matters
Consequential Benefits Are Not Automatic
- Entitlement to pay, seniority, or pension arises only if regularization is granted
- The judgment clarifies that consequential benefits are not pre-ordained but are contingent on the outcome of the fresh representation
- This prevents speculative claims for arrears or back wages prior to formal regularization
