IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 403 of 2008 (S/S) Roshan Dass S/o Sri Shiv Dass R/o Village Bergani, Patti Juwa, P.O. Palli, District Tehri Garhwal. . Petitioner ...………… [ Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through the Secretary Forest Department, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest 87, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. 3. Chief Conservator of Forest, Garhwal Range, 85, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. 4. Conservator of Forest, Bhagirathi Circle, Muni-Ki-Reti, District Tehri Garhwal. 5. Divisional Forest Officer, Tehri Dam -I Forest Division, New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal. ...…………. Respondents Mr. P.C. Jhingan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner, a daily wage worker, working with the forest department has sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to re-engage him on daily wages against Group D post. 2 3) It appears that in the earlier round of litigation, Writ Petition No. 852 (S/S) of 2005 filed by the petitioner and some other persons, was dismissed vide order dated 20th November 2006, by this Court keeping in view the principal of law laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi; 2006 A.I.R.S.C.W. 1991. In said case the regularization was sought by the petitioner in the service. In the aforesaid referred case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (supra), the Apex court had observed that the court should not direct regularization of the daily wage employees, who had not come in the service under the constitutional scheme of employment. However, it was left open for the Government / respondents to engage anyone on daily wages. 4) In the above circumstances, with the observation as above, this Court cannot direct the respondents to re- engage the petitioner against the Group D post. 5) Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with the observation that the petitioner may make representation to the authorities concerned for redressal of his grievances. (Stay Application No. 3260 of 2008 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. June 05, 2008. H.Negi