IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Delay Condonation Application No.5352 of 2010 Restoration Application No.521of 2010 In Writ Petition No. 584 of 2005 (S/S) Tripurari Singh. ……Petitioner. Versus Secretary, Department of Toursim Govt. of Uttaranchal, Dehradund and others. …….Respondents. Mr. Ravi Babulkar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder for the State-respondents. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This is Delay Condonation Application No. 5352 of 2010 accompanying with an affidavit has been filed to condone the delay in filing the restoration application. Grounds shown are sufficient to allow the delay condonation application. The delay condonation application is allowed. Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. The restoration application No. 521 of 2010 has been filed by the applicant-petitioner for recalling the order-dated 11-05-2007. Grounds shown are sufficient to allow the restoration application. 2 The restoration application is allowed. The order dated 11-05-2007 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner claims regularization in Government service on account of the fact that he has already rendered 12 years of service and the petitioner has acquired temporary status. The representation dated 04.03.2005, filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No.1 i.e. Secretary, Department of Tourism Government of Uttaranchal, Dehradun on 04.08.2005. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the controversy of similar situated persons has been decided in writ petition No.02 of 2010(S/B), Kailash Chandra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, wherein the State Government has constituted a committee in terms of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others, 2006(4) SCC 1 and more particularly in terms of the observation recorded in para No.53 of the said judgment. Learned Brief Holder appearing for the State has submitted that the case of the petitioner may be re-consider. The claim of the petitioner for regularization on the basis of the policy determined by the committee. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of without entering into the merits of the controversy. The petitioner would be at liberty to move fresh representation and the respondents shall consider the case of petitioner and pass appropriate order on the representation filed by the petitioner afresh based on the policy of the State Government finalized on the basis of recommendation of the Committee constituted by the State Government referred in the writ 3 petition No.02 of 2010(S/B), Kailash Chandra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, in compliance of Uma Devi (supra), if he had worked for more than 10 years continuously. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S.Verma, J.) 15-07-2010 MK