IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (SS) of 885 of 2011 Shiv Nath & Another ….Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. ..Respondents Present : Mr. I. P. Kohli, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent no.2. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. I. P. Kohli, Advocate for petitioners, Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent no.2. The petitioners are Class IV employees in Ngar Palika Parishad, Haridwar. According to them, they have been working for last more than 20 years. They have prayed for a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar to regularize the services of the petitioners, though in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka & others V. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, such directions cannot be issued, all the same an exception has been created in the aforesaid judgment in Paragraph 53, which is quoted below:- “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan 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 regularisation, 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.” In view of the above, Nagar Palika Parishad i.e. respondent no.2 is hereby directed to consider the regularization of the petitioners in view of the law laid down in Uma Devi’s case, particularly in view of the exception created in Paragraph 53, referred above. In case the concerned authority finds that the petitioner falls within that exception as referred above and are hence liable to be regularized and there is a scheme available with the respondent for such regularization, the same be considered. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 21.7.2011 Kuldeep