IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 569 of 2009 (S/S) Mahendra Singh Mehta ………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Present: Mr. Kishor Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. Kishor Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner was working on contract basis as Hammerman before respondent no. 2 i.e. Acharya, Kshetriya Gramya Vikas Sansthan, Hawalbagh, District Almora. The petitioner sought his regularization by filing a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 1960 of 2003 (S/S) Mahendra Singh Mehta Vs. Acharya, Kshetriya Gramya Vikas Sansthan, Hawalbagh, Distt. Almora and others. A learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 23.5.2008 disposed of the writ petition in view of the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi & others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 primarily relying upon paragraph 53 of the judgment whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court had left it open to the employer to regularize the services of such employees who have been continuing for more than ten years without the strength of any Court’s order and in case the organization has any such a scheme for regularization. In term of the order of the Court, the representation of the petitioner was dismissed on the grounds that the 2 petitioner has been working only on contract basis for 2 years and 4 months and therefore the ratio as laid down in Umadevi’s case is not applicable in the case of the petitioner and consequently, his services were also brought to an end. The petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that though vide order dated 23.5.2008, respondents had been directed to consider the regularization of the services of the petitioner, all the same, they have now terminated the services of the petitioner. Although this Court finds no occasion for interference in the matter inasmuch as the petitioner was only working on contract basis, at the same time, it is true there was no positive direction by this Court to terminate the service of the petitioner. Therefore, no interference is being made by this Court and the writ petition is hereby dismissed. All the same a liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the respondents and in case there is any post or work available with respondent no.2, the petitioner may be considered for the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that the writ petition of the petitioner has been dismissed and therefore there is no positive order by this Court to respondent no.2 to consider the case of the petitioner and it is purely a liberty which has been granted to the petitioner to pursue the respondents. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 11.5.2011 Kuldeep