IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 559 (SS) OF 2001 (Old No. 1880/2000) 1. Smt. Tulsi, W/o late Shri Kishan Singh, R/o Rajkiya Balika Neketan, Almora. 2. Smt. Munni Devi, R/o Village Atyaree (Chit Kapita), Almora, Peon in Rajkiya Balika, Niketan, Almora. 3. Smt. Bhagwati Devi, R/o Adoms Compound Almora Kahar (Waterman) in the Rajkiya Sadan Shishu Sadan, Almora. ……………….Petitioners. Versus 1. State of U.P., through Secretary, Mahila Welfare Department, U.P. Lucknow. 2. Director Mahila Welfare Department, U.P. Lucknow. 3. District Harijan Samaj Kalyan Officers, Almora. 4. District Probation Officer, Almora. …………………Respondents. Sri Yogesh Pandey & Ms. Deepakshi Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Dated: 29.03.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.09.1999 passed by the respondent no. 2. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner no.1 was initially appointed in Government Girl Niketan Karnatak Khola, Almora vide order dated 08.07.1980 on the post of Cook. Petitioner no. 2 was initially appointed in the office of Rajkiya Balika Niketan Karnatak Khola, Almora on the post of Aaya (Peon) on ad hoc basis vide order dated 01.10.1982. Petitioner no. 3 was initially appointed on ad hoc bass in Rajkiya Balika (Niketan) Shishu 2 Sadan, Almora on the post of Kahar vide order-dated 31.07.1980. All the petitioners are working as daily wager in Rajkiya Balika Niketan Almora since 1980 onwards @ Rs. 35/- per day. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are not being paid salary and allowances and other financial benefits which have not been paid since May, 1998, to October, 1999 and their services are not being regularized. Petitioners have worked for more than 15 years. 4. The petitioners have filed representations on 21.03.1998 and on 31.03.1998 stating their grievances and the same has been disposed of on 11.09.1999 on the ground that there is no regularization rules. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed, where it has been stated that there is no rules for regularization. 6. The petitioner has relied 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 regularise 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” “ 3 7. 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 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.” 8. The need of the society is that food being part and parcel of the term ‘life’ as defined under Article 21 of the Constitution 4 of India, and should not be deprived of his livelihood for any inaction on the part of respondents, to bring uniformity in the employees. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kapila Hingorani VS. State of Bihar 2003(7) AIC18 (SC) 194 has emphasized for improving the methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, wherein paragraph 50 of the judgment, the term “life” has been defined relying upon the judgment of Field, J. in Munn V. Illinois reported in 1877 (94) US 1131, as under: “Paragraph – 50: The term ‘life’ used in Article 21 of the Constitution of India has a wide and far reaching concept. It includes livelihood and so many other facets thereof. ‘Life’, as observed by Field J. in Munn V. Illinois [1877(94)US 1131] means something more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against the deprivation of life extends to all those limits and facilities by which life is enjoyed. [See Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and others [1983(1) SCC 124] and Olga Tellis and others Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation and others [1985(3) SCC 545].” 10. Admittedly, petitioners are working since 1980, the respondents, therefore, are directed to decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. 11. In view of the above, a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 11.09.1999. The matter is sent back to the Director Mahila Welfare Department, U.P., Lucknow now Uttaranchal, who shall decide the same within a period of four months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order, framing the scheme for regularization and 5 regularizing the services of the petitioners. However, in the meantime, the petitioners shall be paid minimum of the pay scale by the respondents. 12. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Rajesh Tandon, J.) 29.03.2006 Rathour