IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPSS No. 330 of 2005 Chandra Prakash Maletha …………..Petitioner. Versus Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. and another. ……….Respondents. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondents. 16th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.3.2005 passed by the General manager (Tourism), Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., Dehradun / respondent no. 2 contained in Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Gide on seasonal basis in Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. vide order dated 13.5.1994 passed by General Manager (Tourism), Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., Dehradun. Petitioner worked as Guide in the Corporation upto 1994-95, but thereafter, he was appointed as Receptionist on daily wage basis by the competent authority vide order dated 1.5.1996 and was given posting at Chopta Tourist Rest House, District Chamoli (now District Rudraprayag). In the year, 1997, Chopta Tourist Rest House was closed by the Corporation and the petitioner was given posting in Syalsour Tourist Rest 2 House, District Rudraprayag on daily wage basis. Petitioner worked as Receptionist in Syalsour Tourist Rest House, District Rudraprayag till the month of November, 2000 and thereafter, he was sent to Mines and Minerals Branch of the Corporation. Thereafter, on his personal request, he was posted at Tourism Branch in the month of May, 2002 and the petitioner worked there till month of April, 2003. Petitioner was again posted as Receptionist in Syalsour Tourist Rest House, District Rudraprayag and he worked there till the month of August, 2004 and thereafter vide order dated 6.9.2004 passed by the General Manager (Tourism), Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., Dehradun, the petitioner was posted as Receiptionist in Jakholi Tourist Rest House, District Rudraprayag. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.3.2005, the services of the petitioner were terminated. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has worked in the Corporation for more than ten years on daily wage basis and after such a long service in the Corporation, the removal of the petitioner from the services is not justified. 4. On account of non-availability of work, the petitioner has not been taken on duty and is not being paid wages. As the petitioner was not appointed regularly, therefore, no right accrued to the petitioner to continue in work. However, it is provided that if any person is engaged by the Corporation, the petitioner shall 3 be afforded first opportunity. It is further provided that if at present, work is available, petitioner shall be engaged. 5. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of. (P.C. Verma, J.) 16.9.2008 Rathour