IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (SS) No. 18 of 2009 Lok Nirman Vibhag Dainik/Karyaprabharit Union and others …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition has been filed by the registered union as representative body of the daily wage work charge employees of P.W.D. Department, Uttarrakhand along with nine other petitioners. The petitioner no. 2 and other work charge employees have been working with the department prior to 1989 as daily wage. Thereafter they have been absorbed as work charge employees in the establishment. A government order dated 03.01.2003 was issued by which the petitioners are entitled to be regularized in service with the department, but no action has been taken to implement the above order. However, in pursuance of said order, the State Government vide order dated 12th May 2004 constituted a selection committee comprising three members i.e. Officiating Chief Engineer Level-II, Concerned Superintending Engineer and the Concerned Provincial Executive Engineer. They were directed to take action within one month from the date of issuance of the letter. Thereafter another letter dated 05.05.2006 was issued by the Secretary stating therein that the daily-wage 2 employees working in the department prior to 29.06.1991, shall also be considered for regularization in the available vacant posts on the basis of their respective seniority. However, the government orders have not been complied with, in spite of the selection committee having been constituted and no action has been taken by the authorities. Thereafter letter dated 18th January 2008 was issued by the Chief Engineer, Level-I, P.W.D. giving the details of sanctioned post. However, the Chief Engineer superceded the earlier government orders stating therein that regularization cannot be made in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others reported in [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. Learned counsel for the petitioners have thus challenged the order dated 11th January 2008 on the ground that process for regularization had been initiated long back and the authorities cannot retract from their own order dated 03.01.2003 and thus be directed to take appropriate action accordingly. The respondents have reiterated the plea taken in the letter dated 11th January 2008. However, it is admitted in paragraph-3 of the counter affidavit that vide office memo dated 11.01.2008 the government order dated 03.01.2003 has not been cancelled. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are working since 1986 and a policy decision taken by the respondents to regularize the work charge employees has not been implemented till the date. The Apex Court has categorically held that “question of regularization of services of such employees who have 3 worked for ten years of more has to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court. The Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as one- time measure to regularize the services of such employees who have worked for ten years or more.” Admittedly the government has constituted a committee vide government order dated 12th May 2004 to regularize the work charge employees, however, the said committee has not taken any action till date. This Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be regularized in service in view of Government order dated 03.01.2003. Accordingly, respondent no. 2 is directed to take appropriate steps and direct the members of the committee to implement the policy for regularizing the work charge employees as per government order dated 03.01.2003 and to complete the entire exercise within a period of four months from the date presenting the certified copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) VKG 22.12.2010