IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (SS) of 363 of 2011 Shri Kamal Bhartola and others ….Petitioners Versus Doiwala Sugar Company and another ..Respondents Present : Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate present for the petitioners. Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate present for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for the respondents. 2. The petitioners are temporary/daily rated/seasonal workers (as the case may be) in Doilwala Sugar Company Ltd., Doiwala, Dehradun which is a Government Sugar company. The case of the petitioners is that since there are permanent posts of fitter, helper, welder, etc. lying vacant in the Doiwala Sugar Company, they can be filled up by the petitioners. 3. All the same, when a legal opinion had come by the Legal Remembrancer of the State of Uttarakhand that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka & others V. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 such appointment can only be given subject to fulfillment of certain conditions, the respondents have not taken any decision. 4. The petitioners though contend that the seminal judgment of the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi’ case (supra) will not come in their way for two reasons – (a) there is already a scheme of regularization in the concerned sugar factory even prior to the Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case (supra), and (b) paragraph 53 of the said judgment comes in their protection. 5. In paragraph 53 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has carved out a special category of such persons who have worked for more than 10 years without the strength of any interim order of the Court, and have stated that Government should frame a scheme for their regularization. Paragraph 53 of the said judgment reads as under :- “53. 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 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 being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, 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. In view of the above undisputed fact, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Executive Director, Doiwala Sugar Company Ltd., Doiwala, Dehradun to consider the regularization of the present petitioners on the existing vacancies, in terms of its scheme, if any such scheme is presently in force in the sugar factory and in terms of the exception created by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case (supra). Needful be done within three months from today. 7. It goes without saying that any regularization orders made by the concerned authority shall be in accordance with law, and more particularly, in letter and spirit of the direction of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case (supra). 8. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition is disposed of. 9. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 18.11.2011 Avneet