IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4850 (SS) OF 2001 Sushil Kumar, S/o Shri Hari Ram, At present working as Draftsman In the office of District Rural Development Agency, Bageshwar. ……..Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, though Chief Secretary/Commissioner Rural Development Uttaranchal Shasan, Dehradun. 2. Chief Development Officer, Bageshwar. 3. Project Director District Rural Development Agency, Bageshwar. ………….Respondents. Dated: 24.08.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri M.C. Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in the District Rural Development Agency Bageshwar as Draftsman and pay the regular monthly salary with other benefits as is provided to the regular employees. 3. Briefly stated, in the year, 1997, District Bageshwar was created from the District Almora and the department of 2 District Rural Development Agency Bageshwar was also created accordingly. In the aforesaid department, petitioner was appointed on the vacant post of Draftsman by order dated 24.02.1999 on fixed salary of Rs. 2500/- p.m. 4. The petitioner has submitted that he is continuously working on the post of Draftsman and the Secretary/Commissioner Avas, Rural Development has approved for regularization of the petitioner. The said order is quoted below:- “d`i;k mijksDr fo”k;d bl dk;kZy; ds i= la[;k 624 @ LFkk;h Mh0vkj0Mh0,0 @fnukWd 08 fnlEcj 2000 ,oa i=kad la[;k 810@LFkku Mh0vkj0Mh0,0 @2000&2001 fnukad 15 ekpZ 2001 dk voyksdu djus dk d”V djsa] ftlds }kjk uo l`ftr tuin ckxs’oj ds ftyk xzkE; fodkl vf/kdkj.k esa dk;kZy; [kksys tkus ds mijkUr iSf=d tuin vYeksM+k ls dfu”V fyfid @ Vadd ,oa MªkQ~VeSu ds inksa ij deZpkfj;ksa dk lek;kstu u gksus ds mijkUr ‘kklukns’k la[;k 626 @ 38&2&98 @88@Vh0lh0xzk0fo0 vuqHkkx &2 fnukad 30 vizSy 1998 esa fn;s x;s izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj dk fyfid@Vadd ds in ij Jh rkjk jke vk;kZ ,oa MªkQ~VeSu ds in ij Jh lq’khy dqekj dh rSukrh fjDr inksa ds lkis{k lafonk ij dh xbZ dk mYys[k djrs gq, dk;Z dh egRrk dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq;s nksuksa deZpkjh dks fu;fer fd;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k FkkA mDr lEcU/k esa vkils iqu% vuqjks/k gS fd mDr deZpkfj;ksa vfHkdj.k esa dk;Z djrs gq;s nks o”kZ ls vf/kd dk le; gks x;k gS rFkk ;s in dk;kZy; dk;Z lapkyu dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, vko’;d gS] bu nksuksa deZpkfj;ksa dk dk;Z o O;ogkj Hkh esjh n`f”V esa vPNk gS rFkk os inksa dh ;ksX;rk Hkh j[krs gSaA vr% vuqjks/k gS fd mDr nksuksa deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;fer fu;qfDr fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa vko’;d funsZ’k tkjh djus dh d`ik djsaxsA” 3 mijksDr fo”k;d vkids i= la[;k 189@ch0vkbZ0ih0@ou ,oa xzk0fo0v0’kk0@2001 fnukad 01 flrEcj 2001 ds Øe esa voxr fd;k tkuk gS fd ftyk xzkE; fodkl vfHkdj.k esa dfu”V fyfid o Mªk¶VeSu dks Øe’k% o”kZ 1998 ,oa o”kZ 1999 ls bl vfHkdj.k esa ‘kklukns’k la[;k 626@30&2&98@88 Mh0lh0xzkE; fodkl vuqHkkx &2 fnukad 30 vizSy 1998 ds Øe esa fu;rdkyhu lafonk ij j[ks x;s gSaA tks orZeku esa Hkh dk;Zjr gSa budk dk;Z ljkguh; jgk gS] ‘kklu }kjk lUnfHkZr ‘kklukns’k esa uo fu;qfDr gsrq izkfo/kku ugha j[kk x;k gS] ftlls mDr dkfeZdksa dks fu;ferhdj.k ugha fd;k x;k gS] lqyHk lUnHkZ gsrq ‘kklukns’k dh Nk;kizfr layXu dh tk jgh gSA vr% vki mDr deZpkfj;ksa dks fu;ferhdj.k ds lEcU/k esa vko’;d funsZ’k nsus dk d”V djsaA” 5. However, the petitioner has a grievance that in spite of the said recommendation the petitioner has not been regularized. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders after taking into consideration (filed as Annexures 3 and 4 to the writ petition). 7. Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 24.08.2006 Rathour