IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1121 of 2009 (S/S) 1. Shri Shyam Lal S/o Shri Kheem Ram Presently present as Beldar, At Temporary Division, Public Works Department Bhowali, District Nainital. 2. Shri Kailash Chandra S/o Sri Bachi Ram Presently posted as Beldar At Temporary Division Public Works Department Bhowali, District Nainital. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary Public Works Department Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. The Chief Engineer, Level –I, Public Works Department, Dehradun. 3. The Executive Engineer Provincial Division, P.W.D. Nainital. 4. The Executive Engineer Temporary Division P.W.D. Bhowali, Nainital. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Harendra Belwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to grant the service benefits to the petitioners 2 in regular service w.e.f. 06.08.1999, in pursuance to order dated 31.03.2009, passed in compliance with decision of Division Bench of this Court, in judgment and order dated 09.01.2009 (in Special Appeal No. 01 of 2005) along with connected matters). 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits on record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners are Beldars on muster roll with Public Works Department, working as work charge employees. In view of their five years continuous service on 31.03.1997, vide Government Order No. 6396 dated 15.10.1997, their services were absorbed in the regular establishment. However, the order of regularization was later cancelled vide order dated 20.04.2000. Said order of cancellation was challenged by other similarly situated employees by filing Writ Petition No. 1867 (S/S) of 2003. Said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 17th of September 2003, whereby the order of cancellation of regularization was quashed. The respondents filed special appeal before the Division Bench of this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 09.01.2009, whereby, though the appeal was allowed, but the appellants were directed to consider the case of the respondents / writ petitioners for their regularization in view of the vacancies occurred after cancellation of the regularization. 3 4) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners who are similarly situated to the respondents / writ petitioners in aforesaid Special Appeal No. 01 of 2005, cannot be discriminated. 5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioners being similarly situated to the writ petitioners / respondents in the Special Appeal No. 01 of 2005; State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Diwani Ram and others, are entitled to similar treatment subject to the vacancies. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have already complied with the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in response to judgment and order dated 09.01.2009, passed in Special Appeal No. 01 of 2005. 6) For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners on the same lines as is done in the case of writ petitioners / respondents of the Special Appeal No. 01 of 2005; State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Diwani Ram and others, provided their cases are also similar to them. (Both Interim Relief Application No. 9951 of 2009 as well as Misc. Application No. 10777 of 2009 also stand disposed of) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. December 11, 2009. H. Negi