Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition No. 570 of 2004 (S/S) Ram Raj ……….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Awas, Dehradun and others. ……….. Respondents …………………. Sri Raman Kumar Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Rahul Consul, holding brief of Sri S.Dhuliya, learned Sr. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Date: July 02,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. By means of this petition the petitioner seeks writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Class IV i.e. Peon and pay him salary of the said post. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Peon in Class IV post on 15.10.1990 in Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun (in short (MDDA, Dehradun). The grievance of the petitioner is that he is continuously working on the post of Peon on daily wage basis since 1990 and his services have not been regularized by the respondents. He is also not being paid minimum salary of the said post whereas other employees of his counter part are getting regular salary. The petitioner has submitted several representations for his regularization on Class IV post but till date no action 2 has been taken by the respondents and he is being discriminated by the respondents. 3. In this case despite several time granted to the respondents no counter affidavit has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Apex Court in the case 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 employees 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 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 3 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 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.” 5. Here in the present case, the petitioner has been working from 15.10.1990 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). 6. Since the petitioner has completed more than 16 years of service, therefore, the respondents are 4 directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in consonance with the guidelines laid by the Apex Court in the aforesaid paragraph of Umadevi’s case (supra) within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 7. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 02.07.2008 P.Singh