COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 4663/2001 Subhash Chandra Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Others …….Respondents Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Sri Vipul Sharma, learned Counsel for the MDDA. 3rd April, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. I have heard Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vipul Sharma, learned Counsel for the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (MDDA) and Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 15.9.1988 as Electrician on daily wages in MDDA. In the year 1996, the petitioner filed a writ petition no. 7210 (S/S) of 1996 before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad claiming the regular pay scale of the said post. He is being paid the minimum salary in the pay scale of Rs. 2650-4000 in compliance of the order of Allahabad High Court. The grievance of the petitioner is that the post of Electrician belongs to Group ‘C’ category having the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 per month but the petitioner is not being paid his salary in that pay scale. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of MDDA, it has been admitted that the petitioner is continuously working since 15.9.1988, but it has been denied that the petitioner is working on the post of Electrician. But on perusal of the Pay bill of the petitioner, which is contained as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, it reveals that he is working in MDDA as an Electrician. Further, the order dated 8.11.1999 passed by the Vice Chairman, MDDA clearly designates the petitioner as Electrician. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner is not working on the post of Electrician is without any substance. 4. It is undisputed that the petitioner is continuously working since 15.9.1988. It has also not been disputed that the post of Electrician belongs to Group ‘C’ post. Since the petitioner has put in more than 19 years of service as an Electrician, therefore, he is entitled for his regularization on the said post. 5. Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein at para 53, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to provide that those daily wagers 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. The extract of para 53 is quoted below: “One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan 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 principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred 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.” 6. Here in the present case, it has already been held above that the petitioner has completed more than 19 years and, therefore, in terms of the aforesaid lines, the petitioner’s case for regularization cannot be thrown out as laid down by the Apex Court in Umadevi’s case. 7. Since the petitioner has completed more than 19 years of service, therefore, the MDDA is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in consonance with the guidelines given by the Apex Court in Umadevi’s case within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) Prabodh