IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 759(S/S) OF 2010 Hayat Singh and another ……. Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …. Respondents. Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned Brief Holder for the respondents. (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) By means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought the writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for regularization/regular appointment on class IV post in the department and pay the salary to the petitioners according to the prevalent pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 per month, which is being paid to the other regular employees in the department. According to the petitioners they were appointed on daily wages as Peon/ Palledar in Khati Godown in District Almora(now District Bageshwar) vide appointment order dated 19-4-1986 issued by the District Supply Officer in pursuance of order dated 21- 03-1986 of the District Magistrate, Almora. In pursuance of appointment order the petitioners joined their duty in the Office of District Supply Officer Bageshwar as Peon/ Palledar. Initially the petitioners were getting Rs. 9/- per day as wages and thereafter in the year 1993 they were given Rs. 15/- per day as wages and subsequently it was enhanced to Rs. 25/- per day in the year 1996 and since 2001 they are getting Rs. 50.88 per day. Petitioners’ further case is that they were appointed against the substantive and clear vacancies, which existed in the department and 2 they are continuously working without having any artificial break. It is the further assertion of the petitioners that almost 23 years service in the department as daily wager, they are not being given the regular pay scale despite several representations made to the respondents. Hence they have prayed for regularization of their service and grant of pay scale of class IV post, which the regular employees in the department are getting. In support of their claim the petitioners have filed appointment letter, Annexure No.1 and several representations made by them to the District Magistrate as well as to the District Supply Officer from time to time for regularisation of their services in the department. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited the court’s attention to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, and more particularly the observations made in paragraph 53 therefore, which is being extracted hereunder, and alleged that the petitioners have rendered more than 23 years of service in the department, therefore, they are entitled for regularisation and minimu pay scale:- “One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where regular 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 3 tribunals. The question of regularisation 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 above referred 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 bing now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisaion, 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 regularising or making permanent, those not duly applinted as per the constitutional scheme.” Learned Brief Holder, appearing on behalf of the State, has informed the court that the State Government has constituted a committee to take a policy decision on the issue of regularisation of the employees working in a temporary capacity for a period of more than ten years, whether or not their appointment is against the substantive post. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also invited court’s attention towards the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 121 of 2006, Lake Development Authority vs. Mahesh Chandra Joshi, decided on 10- 4 02-2010, and urged that the Division Bench, in the matter of regularisation of the employees having more than 10 years service to their credit, has sent the matter to the committee constituted by the State in compliance of Umadevi’s case, for consideration of regularisation. Therefore, in view of above, the matter of petitioners is sent to the aforesaid Committee constituted by the State Government for consideration of their regularasation. The Committee while considering the candidatue of the petitioners for regularization will look into this aspect also as to whether the petitioners were working as daily wagers against a substantive vacancy and they have rendered the service as such for a period of more than 10 years in the department. The respondent No.1 is further directed to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of the minimum pay scale in the lowest grade in class-IV post. The respondent No.1 will also consider this aspect as to whether the petitioners have rendered more than 10 years service in the department. It is made clear that the petitioners will not be entitled for any other allowances on the minimum pay scale being paid to them. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Dated: 28-08-2010 (B.S. Verma, J. ) ISB