Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition (S/B) No.1677 of 2002 Mannu Lal ……. Petitioner Versus The Hemwanti Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University through its Registrar and another. ……. Respondents …………………… Sri U.P.S.Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri J.P.Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents. Date: May 14, 2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to give to the petitioner minimum of pay scale and other admissible benefits which is being paid to the regular employees of the post on which the petitioner is working and further prayed for writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize his services on the post of sweeper. 2. The petitioner has been engaged as Sweeper on daily wages basis in Dr. B. Gopala Reddy Constituent College of the respondent No.1 from 18.07.1988. At present he is being paid Rs. 2500/- as fixed amount. It is also alleged that juniors to the petitioner in Constituent College of the respondents at Tehri have been regularized in the year 1996 & 1999. Despite several requests of the 2 petitioner his services have not been regularized. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition. 3. The contention of the respondent is that on the proposal of the University the State Government has sanctioned 18 posts of Sweepers in the year 1998 without any pay scale, hence work is being taken from them on contract basis. It is also contended that the proposal in regard to creation of post has been sent to the State Government by the University. 4. It is undisputed that the petitioner is continuously working since 18.07.1988. It is also admitted to the respondents that due to actual work load, without post and vacancies, the University has employed several persons in Class III and Class IV posts including the petitioner with the approval of the State Government. 5. Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. versus Umadevi & others, reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases, Page 1 , wherein at Para 53, the 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. Para 53 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular 3 appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, (1967) 1 SCR 128), R.N. Nanjundappa (R.N.Nanjundappa v. T.Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409) and B.N.Nagarajan (B.N.Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC, 507) and referred to in para 15 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 above referred 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 4 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.” 6. Here in the present case, it has already been that the petitioner has completed more than 19 years and, therefore, in terms of the aforesaid observation made by the Apex Court, the petitioner’s case for regularization cannot be thrown out as laid down by the Apex Court in Umadevi’s case (supra). 7. Since the petitioner has completed more than 19 years of service, therefore, the respondents/University is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in consonance with the guidelines laid by the Apex Court in Umadevi’s case (supra) within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 8. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 14.05.2008 P.Singh