IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1926 of 2005 Indra Mohan and others ….Petitioners. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others …Respondents. Present : Sri Anil Dabral, Advocate present for the petitioners. Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate present for respondent nos. 2 to 5. Sri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate present for respondent no. 6. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (oral) Heard Sri Anil Dabral, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 5 as well as Sri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent no. 6. The petitioners were employees in “Hardwar Nagar Palika Parishad”. In the year 1983 the Legislature in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh came out with an Act known as “Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975”. Consequent to it another body was created known as “Jal Sansthan” which caters to the supply of water in the local area. Many of the employees of “Nagar Palika” were transferred to this body, namely, “Jal Sansthan”. The petitioners were the employees of “Nagar Palika”, Haridwar. It is the case of the petitioners that their services stood transferred to a new body which is “Jal Sansthan”. This is contested by the “Jal Sansthan” saying that in the memorandum the name of the petitioners does not exist though the counsel appearing for “Jal Sansthan” Sri Rakesh Thapliyal admits that the petitioners were 2 engaged on contractual basis in year 2002 by “Jal Sansthan”, Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the petitioners are continuing in “Jal Sansthan” for the last more than 9 years. The petitioners pray that their services be regularised. Their services cannot be regularised in view of the Constitution Bench judgment, namely, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. However, in the same judgment, an exception has already been carved out for a certain category of employees and where a law exists for regularization or where there is a scheme by the Government for regularisation such employees who are working on daily rate basis or contractual basis should be considered. Therefore, considering the fact that the petitioner was earlier working in “Nagar Palika” it is directed that if in future the “Jal Sansthan” comes out with a scheme of regularisation of such employees working on either daily rated basis or contractual basis, the petitioners and similarly situated persons shall be duly considered in accordance with law for such regularisation. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 14.6.2011 Avneet