COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) 1445/2002 Mahipal & Others …….Petitioners Versus Vice Chancellor, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna University, Srinagar (Garhwal) & Others …….Respondents Sri Ravi Babulkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners. None for the respondents. 13th May, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners. The petitioners are working as Sweeper on daily wages in Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna University, Srinagar (Garhwal) for the last so many years. Petitioner no. 1 is working since 28.7.1988, petitioner no. 2 is working since 10.7.1990, petitioner no. 3 is working since 11.1.1990, petitioner no. 4 is working since 1.12.1995, petitioner no. 5 is working since 4.2.1996, petitioner no. 6 is working since 14.8.1996, petitioner no. 7 is working since 4.12.1996, petitioner no. 8 is working since 3.12.1996, petitioner no. 9 is working since 27.1.1997 and petitioner no. 10 & 11 are working since 16.7.1997. All the petitioners are Balmikies by cast and belong to scheduled caste category. These facts have not been denied in the counter affidavit. 2 2. It is also undisputed that the Executive Committee of the University in its meeting held on 26.5.2000 considered the matter of regularization of daily wager sweepers including the petitioners and constituted a committee for this purpose and passed a resolution that action would taken as per the report of the said committee. Accordingly, the committee submitted its report dated 19.6.2000, whereby it recommended for regularization of these daily wager sweepers according to their seniority against the available 17 vacancies of Class IV posts of scheduled caste. The resolution dated 26.5.2000 passed by the Executive Council is contained in Annexure 2 to the counter affidavit and the report of the committee dated 19.6.2000 is contained in Annexure 3 to the counter affidavit. But the services of the petitioner could not be regularized. Petitioners have also averred that services of some similarly situated persons have been regularized ignoring the case of the petitioners. 3. Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein at para 53, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to provide that those daily wagers who have put in service of ten years or more, for them appropriate scheme shall be framed and they shall be regularized in phased manner. The extract of para 53 is quoted below: “One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 3 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 4 4. Here in the present case, petitioners have put in more than 10 years of service and are still working. Therefore, in terms of the aforesaid lines, the petitioner’s case for regularization cannot be thrown out as laid down by the Apex Court in Umadevi’s case. 5. In view of the above legal proposition and the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is finally disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in consonance with the guidelines given by the Apex Court in Umadevi’s case within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. In the meantime, petitioners shall be paid salary equal to that of minimum of pay scale of Class IV. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 13.5.2008 Prabodh