COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 1302/ 2003 (Old No. 1994/2000) Lalit Prasad Dewali …………….Petitioner. Versus State of U.P. through Secretary, Technical Education, Lucknow, and Others. …………Respondents. With Writ Petition (S/B) 394/2002 Lalit Prasad Dewali ………….. Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal Through Secretary Education, Dehradun & Others. …………..Respondents. Sri Paresh Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri A. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Smt. Bina Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. 28th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Since controversy involved in both these writ petitions is similar and interrelated based on same set of facts, hence these petitions are being decided by one and common order. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.03.2000 passed by the Joint Director, Technical Education Pauri Garhwal. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue formal order of regularization of petitioner with effect form the year 1979 in compliance of the Regularization Rules, 1979. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give regular pension and the pensionary benefit to the petitioner. (iv) Award the costs of the writ petitions. 2. Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Workshop Instructor on 19.12.1973 on ad hoc basis. On 23.7.1975, petitioner was appointed on the post of Instructor Hydraulic Lab on ad hoc basis. The said appointment of the petitioner was made after the recommendation of the High Power Selection Committee and till the availability of the duly selected candidate through the Public Service Commission. Petitioner made several representations for regularization of his services on the post of Assistant Lecturer. But his services were not regularized although the petitioner was in the service since 1975 and vide order dated 31.3.2000, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service. 3. Petitioner has prayed for regularization of his services and pensionary benefits accordingly. Prayer has been made on the basis of the fact that the regularization of the petitioner has bee illegally ignored and his post retiral dues have not paid although petitioner was entitled for his regularization in the view of the Regularization Rules, 1979 and the amended Regularization Rules, 1984. This fact had not been disputed. 4. Therefore, both the writ petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to first regularize the services of the petitioner and notionally fix his pension thereafter. However, arrears of salary shall not be paid to the petitioner but his pension shall be paid on the basis of that. Provisional pension already made shall be adjusted while making the payment of final pension. The order of regularization and pensionary benefits shall be passed within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 28.08.2008 Praboth