IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 407 (SS) of 2010 Shivdas Yadav …Petitioner Versus Secretary, Estate Department, State of Uttarakhand, Dehradun and another …Respondents Mr. Lalit Samant, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, the learned standing counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1998 in the Secretariat in the erstwhile State of U.P. on daily rate basis. After the creation of State of Uttarakhand, the petitioner in the year 2004 was transferred to the Estate Department. The case of the petitioner is that similarly situated persons like the petitioner, who were also working in the capacity of driver in the Secretariat, have since been absorbed on ad hoc basis in the department, though the petitioner has been left out. The petitioner, therefore, has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus from this Court commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on ad hoc basis. Such prayer cannot be granted by this Court in view of the paragraph- 53 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others reported in [(2006) 4 SCC 1] where it has been held that the regularization cannot be granted yet a special category has been carved out in the said case stating that such employees who have continued to work for more than ten years without any strength of interim order and if there is a scheme of regularization such employees shall be considered for regularization. In view of the above, this writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction that in case there is any scheme for regularization of daily rate persons, the same should be considered by the respondent no. 1 in view of the paragraph-53 of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others reported in [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. The petitioner undertake to inform the respondent no. 1 about the said judgment. In case such representation is filed, it is hoped that the same shall be considered as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshul Dhulia, J.) Dated 09.08.2011 VKG