HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting.) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2)(b) Description of the case. WP. No.1675 /05 (S/S) Smt Pushpa and others Vs Nagar Palika Kashipur and others Approved for reporting. _____________________ Not approved for reporting Date of decision 31.03.06 Initial of Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO.1675 (SS) OF 2005 1. Smt. Pushpa, wife of Shri Ram Gopal, 2. Shri. Kamal, S/o Shri Krishna Gopal, 3. Smt. Rekha, wife of Shri Ram Kumar, 4. Smt. Sundari, wife of Shri Rajendra, 5. Smt. Bala wife of Shri Raja Ram, 6. Smt. Kiran wife of Shri Indra Mohan. 7. Smt. Laxmi wife of Shri Manoj, 8. Shri Suresh, S/o Shri Keshav, 9. Smt. Geeta wife of Shri Ved Prakash, 10. Smt. Sangeeta, wife of Shri Rajan, 11. Shri Ajay, S/o Shri Ramesh, 12. Shri Sudesh, S/o Shri Ram Avtar, 13. Shri Arvind, S/o Shri Ashok, 14. Shri Mohit, S/o Shri Harkesh, 15. Smt. Munni wife of Shri Pramod, All residents of Mohalla Maheshpura, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttaranchal. ………………..Petitioners. Versus 1. Nagar Palika Parishad Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, though its Executive officer. 2. Nideshak Shahari Evam Avas Nideshak Uttaranchal Nideshalaya, Dehradun. 3. Secretary Shari Avam Avas Vibhag Uttaranchal Shashan, Dehradun. …………Respondents. Dated: 31.03.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner, Pradeep Lohni, Advocate for the respondent no. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the services of thue petitioner on the post of Safai Karmachari at Nagar Palika Parishad, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Briefly stated, the petitioners are working in the department of the respondents on daily wage from the following dates:- S. Nos. Name of petitioners Year 1 Smt. Pushpa Wife of Shri Ram Gopal 1989 2 Shri Kamal son of Shri Krishna Gopal 2003 3 Smt. Rekha wife of Shri Ram Kumar 2003 4 Smt. Sundari wife of Shri Rajendra 2003 5 Smt. Bala wife of Shri Raja Ram 1989 6 Smt. Kiran wife of Shri Indra Mohan 2003 7 Smt. Laxmi wife of Shri Manoj 2003 8 Shri Suresh son of Shri Keshav 2003 9 Smt. Geeta wife of Shri Ved Prakash 2003 9 Smt. Sangeeta wife of Shri rajan 2003 10 Shri Ajay, son of Shri Ramesh 2003 11 Shri Sudesh, son of Shri Ram Avtar 2004 12 Shri Arvind, son of Shri Ashok 2003 13 Shri Mohit son of Shri Harkesh 2003 14 Smt. Munni wife of Shri Pramod 13-12-2004 Petitioners have submitted that Government of Uttar Pradesh has issued Government Order dated 26th June, 1992 regarding the regularization of the daily wager. Relevant portion of the sia dG.O. is quoted blow:- ^^¼1½ LFkkuh; fudk;ksa esa ;fn  kklud dh vuqefr ls l`ftr u;s in miyc/k gkus ds dkj.k fdlh deZpkjh dh lsok fuo`fRr ds dkj.k ;k fdlh deZpkjh dh e`R;q ds dkj.k fu;fer inksa dh fjfDr;ksa gksrh gS rks ml ij lcls igys ml LFkkuh; fudk; esa dk;Zjr ,sls nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh dks ojh;rk ds v/kkj ij vkj{k.k ds fu;eksa dk ikyu djrs gq, fu;qfDr;ksa dh tk;saxh tks nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh 11&10&1989 dks dk;Zjr Fks fdzUrq mUgksus ml fnu rhu o"kZ dh yxkrkj lsok vkSj izR;sd o"kZ esa 240 fnu esa dk;Z dh 'krZ iwjh dj yh gks vkSj rc ls yxkrkj LFkkuh; fudk;ksa nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh ds :i esa dk;Zjr gks A ¼2½ ;fn iz’uxr LFkkuh; fudk; esa bl izdkj ;k vc fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ nSfud osru Hksxh deZpkjh ugha gS rHkh ckgj ls vH;kfFkZ;ksa esa ls fu;qfDr dh tk ldsxh fdUrq ckgj ls vH;kfFkZ;ksa dh fu;qfDr;ksa ds fy, bEykbZes.V ,Dlpsat ls uke eaxkus] p;u dh vU; lHkh izfdz;kvksa vkSj fu;eksa dk ikyu rFkk p;u izfdz;k ftyk eftLV~szt ds ns[k js[k esa djkus dh vfuok;Zrk gksxh vksj ,slh fu;qfDr;ksa esa vU; fdlh Hkh izdkj ls fu;qfDr;ka ugha dh tk ldsaxh A** The petitioners have referred the judgment passed on 12th July, 2005 in Writ Petition No. 6449 of 2001 (S/S), Madan Lal and others Vs. State of U.P. Relevant observations are quoted below:- “However, this court feels that the regularization can only be directed, subject to the condition that the posts are sanctioned by the government. Learned Standing Counsel for the Nagar Palika submits that by Government Order dated 25.09.2004, the government of Uttaranchal, has lifted the ban on recruitment of sweepers. Learned Counsel further brought to the notice of the Court that there are some twenty vacant posts, which are required to be filled and Nagar Palika is ready to accommodate those petitioners, who are entitled to same according to their seniority, in terms of the government Order. In view of said statement, as to the regularization of the petitioners, it is directed that their cases for regularization may be considered expeditiously according to the seniority of the daily wage workers (provided they are still working on daily wages), subject to availability of the vacant post.” The petitioners have also referred the judgment of Haryana Vs. Pyara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130. The relevant observation is quoted below:- “So far as the work charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularize them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labour is continued for a fairly long spell-say two or three years- a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such situation it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularization. While doing so the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this Court security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs Putti Lal reported in 2002D(1) E.L.C. 524 (S.C). It was also a case of daily wagers of Forest Department. The Apex Court has held as under:- “So far as the State of Uttaranchal is concerned, a scheme for regularization of daily workers has been produced before us which prima facie does not appear to be objectionable excepting the provisions regarding qualification for regularisation. Be it stated that the qualification essential for being regularised would be the qualification as was relevant on the date of particular employee was taken in as a daily wager and not the qualification, which is being fixed under the Scheme. The fact that the employees have been allowed to continue for so many years indicates the existence or the necessity for having such posts. But still it would not be open for the court to indicate as to how many posts would be created for the absorption of these daily wage workers. Needless to mention that the appropriate authority will consider the case of these daily wagers sympathetically who have discharged the duties for all these years to the satisfaction of their authority concerned. So far as the salary is concerned as we have stated in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh, a daily wager in the State of Uttaranchal would also be entitled to the minimum of he pay scale as is available to his counter parts to in the Government until his services are regularised and he is given regular scale of pay” In the case of D.S. Nakara and others Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 130, the concept of social justice has been laid down by the Apex Court. Relevant observations of which are quoted below: “65. That is the end of the journey. With the expanding horizons of socio-economic justice, the socialist Republic and welfare State which we endeavour to set up and largely influenced by the fact that the old men who retired when emoluments were comparatively low and are exposed to vagaries of continuously rising prices, the falling value of the rupee consequent upon inflationary inputs, we are satisfied that by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criteria; ‘being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date’ for being eligible for the liberalised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogenous class, the classification being not based on any discernible rational principle and having been found wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension and the eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary, we are of the view that the eligibility for liberalised pension scheme of being in service on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date in impugned memoranda, Exhibits P-1 and P-2 violates Article 14 and is unconstitutional and is struck down.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kapila Hingdorani Vs. State of Bihar 2003(7) AIC18 (SC) 194 has emphasized for improving he methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, wherein paragraph 50 of the judgment, the term “life” has been defined relying upon the judgment of Field, J. in Munn V. Illinois reported in 1877 (94) US 1131, as under: “Paragraph – 50: The term ‘life’ used in Article 21 of the Constitution of India has a wide and far reaching concept. It includes livelihood and so may other facets thereof. ‘Life’, as observed by Filed, J. in Munn V. Illinois [1877(94)US 1131] means something more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against the deprivation of life extends to tall those limits and facilities by which life is enjoyed. [See Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and others [1983(1) SCC 124]. and Olga Tellis and others Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation and others [1985(3) SCC 545]. In view of the above, the matter is sent back to the respondent concerned, who shall decide the matter afresh in the light of the G.O. dated 216.06.1992 in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 31.03.2006 (Rajesh Tandon, J.) Rathour