Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Delay Condonation Application No.3608 of 2008 Restoration Application No.672 of 2008 IN Writ Petition (S/S) No.3245 of 2001 Digamber Singh ……. Petitioner Versus The State of Uttaranchal through the Secretary, Ministry of Forest, Uttaranchal and others. ……. Respondents ………………….. Sri Vikas Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner. Sri H.M.Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents. Date: June 20, 2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. Restoration application has been filed by the applicant/petitioner with delay. The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 02.04.2008. Both these applications are allowed. Order dated 02.04.2008 is recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number alongwith interim order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on merit of the writ petition. 3. By means of this petition the petitioner seeks writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in the Forest Department and to pay him regular monthly salary as is being paid to the regular employees. 4. The petitioner was engaged in the Forest Department seasonally on the post of Bhawan Chowkidar with effect from 01.06.1984. It is alleged that the services of the petitioner were extended from time to time and lastly on 30.10.2000 it was ordered that his services shall come to an end on 30.06.2001. The petitioner has completed about 24 years service in the Department but he has not regularized and is not being paid regular monthly salary. 5. The respondents contended that the petitioner was never appointed against any substantive post. He was working as a seasonal Bhawan Chowkidar. It is not denied by the respondents that the petitioner has been working with effect from 01.06.1986. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Apex Court in the case Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. versus Umadevi & others, reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases, Page 1 , wherein at Para 53, the Apex Court has been pleased to provide that those employees who have put in service of ten years or more, for them appropriate scheme shall be framed and they shall be regularized in phased manner. Para 53 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, (1967) 1 SCR 128), R.N. Nanjundappa (R.N.Nanjundappa v. T.Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409) and B.N.Nagarajan (B.N.Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC, 507) and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 7. Here in the present case, the petitioner has been working from 01.06.1984 and, therefore, in terms of the aforesaid observation made by the Apex Court, the petitioner’s case for regularization cannot be thrown out as laid down by the Apex Court in Umadevi’s case (supra). 8. Since the petitioner has completed more than 23 years of service, therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in consonance with the guidelines laid by the Apex Court in the aforesaid paragraph of Umadevi’s case (supra) within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 9. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 20.06.2008 P.Singh