HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting.) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2)(b) Description of the case. WP No. 431/2006 (S/S) Chandi Prasad Vs State Nagar Vikash and others Approved for reporting. _____________________ Not approved for reporting Date of decision 29.03.2006 Initial of Judge 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 431 (SS) OF 2006 Chandi Prasad, R/o Village & P.O. Barkot, District Uttarkashi. ..............Peititioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary, Nagar Vikas, Dehradun. 2. Director, Local Bodies, Uttaranchal Sashan, Dehradun. 3. Chairman/Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Barkot, District Uttarkashi. 4. Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Barkot, District Uttarkashi. 5. District Magistrate, Uttarkashi. .............Respondents. Sri S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the State. Dated: 29.03.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to create and sanction the post of Electrician in Nagar Panchayat Barkot, District Uttarkashi. Further prayer has been made for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Electrician in Nagar Panchayat Barkot, District Uttarkashi and to pay him salary as admissible to regular Electrician Trade-III (Group C) employees along with all consequential benefits. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage basis on the post of Electrician on 28.05.1992 and 3 he is continuously working for the last 14 years. According to the case of the petitioner, he is a trained wire-man from the Industrial Training Institute, District Uttar Kashi and National Grade Certificate of Wire-man Trade was issued to him by the State Government for training in Vocational Traders, U.P.. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that according to the resolution passed by the Nagar Panchayat Barkot, Uttar Kashi, the post of Electrician was created looking to the nature and exigency of the work. In pursuance of the aforesaid resolution, the post was created as will appear from the letter dated 19th February 1998. The same is quoted below:- “fo"k;%& uxj iapk;r cMdksVZ ¼mRrjdk’kh½ esa bysfDVªf’k;u ds in l`tu ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] mijksDr ds lEcU/k esa fuosnu djrk gS fd ;g fudk; lEeksfr/kke ds izos’k }kjk fjDRk gksus ds dkj.k ;gka ij izfro"kZ yk[kksa dks rknkn esa izfdz;ksa ,oa d"V gksdj vkuk&tkuk yxk jgrk gS ,oa uxj dh ekxZ izos’k O;oLFkk dk lEiw.kZ nkf;Ro bl fudk; dk gSA bl fudk; esa i= izdk’ku O;oLFkk jgs lwpuk bl ;s pykus gsrq ,d nSfud osru Hkksxh bysfDVªf’k;u deZpkjh dk;Zjr gS lc fd fudk; esa bysfdVfª’ku dk dksbZ in l`ftr ugha gS fudkl esa bysfDVªf’k;u dk in l`ftr djus gsrq fudk; dh cSBd fnukad 13-8-97 esa izLrko la[;k 53 ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA ftldh lE;izfrfyfi layXu gSA vr% vkils vuqjks/k gS fd uxj iapk;r] cMdksV ¼mRrjdk’kh½ esa ekxZ O;oLFkk dks v/;;udj jgrs gq, ,d bysfDVªf’k;u dk in l`tu dh Lohd`fr iznku djus dk d"V djsaxsA” However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the post has been created for Electrician but still the petitioner is working as a daily wage employee and the service of the petitioner has not been regularized as yet even after completing the 14 years of service. The petitioner has relied 4 upon State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh AIR 1992 SC 2130 Relevant observations of the Apex Court are quoted below:- “So far as the work charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularize them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labour is continued for a fairly long spell-say two or three years- a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such situation it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularization. While doing so the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this Court security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job.” “ In the judgment of State of U.P. Vs. Putti Lal 1998 (79) FLR 592, the State of U.P. has also framed rules for regularization in the year 2001, where the cut-off date has been mentioned as 29th June, 1991. The Apex Court has held as under: “So far as the State of Uttaranchal is concerned, a scheme for regularization of daily workers has been produced before us which prima facie does not appear to be objectionable expecting the provisions regarding qualification for regularisation. Be it stated that the qualification essential for being regularized would be the qualification as was relevant on the date of particular employee was taken in as a daily wager and not the qualification, which is being fixed under the Scheme. The fact that the employees have been allowed 5 to continue for so many years indicates the existence or the necessity for having such posts. But still it would not be open for the court to indicate as to how many posts would be created for the absorption of these daily wage workers. Needless to mention that the appropriate authority will consider the case of these daily wagers sympathetically who have discharged the duties for all these years to the satisfaction of their authority concerned. So far as the salary is concerned as we have stated in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh, a daily wager in the State of Uttaranchal would also be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale as is available to his counter parts to in the Government until his services are regularized and he is given regular scale of pay.” In the light of the aforesaid , petitioner has referred a recommendation dated 19th February, 1998. The respondents are directed to consider for framing the schemes for regularization of the employees working in the department. However, in the meantime, the petitioner shall be paid minimum of the pay-scale. Writ petition is, therefore, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 29.03.2006 Rathour