IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 835 of 2004 Amrit Lal & others …….Petitioners. Versus Indian Institute of Petroleum and another ……Respondents. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) By the time the Writ Petition was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners states at the bar that originally there were five petitioners in the Writ Petition. Subsequently the Writ Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and thereafter a recall application was filed only on behalf of petitioner nos. 4 and 5. Therefore only petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are before this Court and this order which the Court is passing will be applicable for petitioner nos. 4 and 5 only. Learned counsel for the petitioners has limited his argument that the petitioners were working as casual workers in the Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun from time to time. They have completed more than 240 days in a year upto 17.11.1999. The petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayers :- “(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioners on preferential basis for their appointment on the post of regular Plumber/ Tube well operator in the Respondent Department considering their services in the department on daily wages. (ii) any other suitable writ order or direction, which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iii) Award the cost of petition to the petitioner.” Now the petitioners have limited their claim to a Scheme known as “IIP Casual/Contractual Workers Absorption Scheme, 2000”. This scheme is in existence has not been denied by the learned counsel for the Indian Institute of Petroleum Ms. Anjali Bhargava. Under this Scheme those workers who have been engaged on consolidated payment of wages and have completed 240 days in a 2 year upto 17.11.1999 shall be considered for appointment on a regular vacancy as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the aforesaid Scheme. Learned counsel for the Indian Institute of Petroleum also states that in case the petitioners have limited their prayer to this extent she would not object, as she deems that such a Scheme on which reliance has been placed is applicable to the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid, the Indian Institute of Petroleum which is an instrumentality of the State is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment on a vacancy as per the Scheme (Annexure 1 to the Rejoinder Affidavit), whenever such an occasion arises and in case the petitioners fulfil the conditions they may be appointed. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 13.8.2010 Avneet