IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1100 of 2003 (S/S) Ram Singh and others. ……..Petitioners. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. …Respondents. Present: Mr. K.S. Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) This matter was dismissed for non-prosecution on 1.9.2009. Now a restoration application (MCC No. 567 of 2011) has been filed along with an application for condonation of delay (CLMA No. 7733 of 2011), which has been vehemently opposed by Sri T.A. Khan, Advocate who is representing “Kisan Sahkari Samiti Sugar Mills Ltd.”. All the same, the reasons assigned for delay in filing the restoration application appear to be bona fide. Delay is condoned. Delay condonation application (CLMA No. 7733 of 2011) is allowed. The reasons assigned for recalling the order dated 1.9.2009 also seem to be proper. Restoration application (MCC No. 567 of 2011) is allowed. Order dated 1.9.2009 is recalled and the case is restored to its original number. Heard the counsels for both the parties on merits. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who have been working in “Kisan Sahkari Samiti Sugar Mills Ltd.” on daily rated basis. They have prayed that their services be regularized. This prayer cannot be granted to the petitioners in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. 2 All the same, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Cane Commissioner, Dehradun, Uttarakhand to decide the case of the petitioner in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, where in Paragraph 53 an observation has been made that the persons who have been working for more than 10 years without strength of any interim order of any Court, they shall be considered for regularisation under a scheme. Therefore in case any such scheme is there with respondents, the regularization of petitioners shall be considered in accordance with the law laid down in Uma Devi (supra). Learned counsel undertakes to apprise the Cane Commissioner with the copy of the order of the Uma Devi’s case (supra). No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 8.8.2011 Rathour