IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 163 of 2000(S/S) (Old No. 4163/2000) 1. Purnanand S/o Mukund Ram, R/o Village Nichauli, P.O. Nichauli, District Tehri. 2. Guru Prasad S/o Sri Kamla Ram, R/o Village Baghwan, Tehri Garhwal. 3. Dayal Singh S/o Sunder Singh, R/o Village Pachur, P.O. Raud Dhar, Tehri Garhwal. 4. Narain Singh S/o Kutal Singh, R/o Village Dungi, P.O. Hindola Khas, District Tehri Garhwal. 5. Bachan Singh S/o Ratan Singh, R/o Village Kothi, P.O. Maligoan, P.O. Tehri Garhwal. 6. Subhash Chander S/o Sri Guru Prasad, R/o Village Pali Mahad, District Tehri Garhwal. 7. Laxmi Narain S/o Sri Kali Ram, R/o Masan Gaon, P.O. Hindola Khas, Tehri Garhwal. 8. Bhawan Singh S/o Sri Satay Singh, R/o Village Beta Koat, Hindola Khas, Tehri Garhwal. 9. Diwan Singh S/o Sri Gata Singh, R/o Village Chaka, Tehri Garhwal. 10. Ram Bahadur Pal S/o Rameshwar Dayal, R/o Sod Pani, P.O. Bacheri, Tehri Garhwal. 11. Kalam Singh S/o Bhaddu Singh, R/o Village Kim Khola, P.O. Amani, Tehri Garhwal. 12. Karn Singh S/o Chandan Singh, R/o Village Shyampur, P.O. Shyampur, Dehradun. 13. Dev Singh S/o Sri Magani Singh, R/o Village Mahar, Tehri Garhwal. ……. Petitioners Versus 1. U.P. Jal Nigam, 6 Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow, through its Managing Director. 2. Chief Engineer (Garhwal Zone), U.P. Jal Nigam, Dehradun. 3. Chief Engineer (Uttarakhand Zone), U.P. Jal Nigam, Dehradun. 4. Superintending Engineer, Construction Circle, U.P. Jal Nigam, New Tehri. 5. Executive Engineer, Project Division, U.P. Jal Nigam, Dev Prayag, Tehri Garhwal. ……… Respondents Mr. Nandan Arya Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Sri Nandan Arya Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents. 2. Sri Arya, the learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of the fact that the Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan Regularisation (On Group ‘D’ Post) of Daily Wages Appointment Regulations, 2003 have come into force during the pendency of the writ petition, seeks permission to withdrawn the writ petition with the liberty of first making a representation to the respondents for petitioner’s regularisation under 2003 Regulations, if the petitioners have not been already regularised, and filing another writ petition, if future developments so warrant. 3. Permission granted. 4. With the above liberty, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 30.08.2006 30.08.2006 A