IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 6 of 2008 State of Uttarakhand & others. .……… Appellants Versus Mohan Chandra Sanwal. .………. Respondent Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the appellants. Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) Respondent - Mohan Chandra Sanwal approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 699 of 2006. In the aforesaid writ petition, he claimed regularisation in service. The prayer made by the respondent in the writ petition was not acceded to. However, while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition on 05.06.2006, a learned Single Judge of this Court inter alia issued the following directions: “Considering the fact that petitioner is working with the respondent no. 3 for more than three years on the post of Account Clerk as daily wager, petitioner may be permitted to continue as daily wage clerk, if work and conduct of the petitioner is upto the mark, and further, if the work is available, till the duly selected candidate joins on the post against which petitioner is working.” 2. The order dated 05.06.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, disposing of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 699 of 2006, has been impugned by the State Government through the instant Special Appeal. 3. By a motion Bench order dated 11.10.2007, the operation of the impugned judgment, rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 699 of 2006, was stayed. It is the common case of the learned counsel for the rival parties, that after the aforesaid motion Bench order was passed on 11.10.2007, the services of the respondent were dispensed with. It is also the common case of the learned counsel for the rival parties, that the appellants have not replaced the respondent by any other person, either in the same capacity as the respondent, i.e. on daily wage basis, or by making a regular recruitment 2 to the post of Accounts Clerk. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is apparent that even though the services of the respondent were dispensed with in the year 2007, he has not been replaced by any other individual. Meaning thereby, that there was no work available so far as the post of Accounts Clerk, which was occupied by the respondent, is concerned. 4. Even the order dated 05.06.2006 authorised the appellants to dispense with the services of the respondent in the absence of work. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are satisfied, that dispensing with the services of the respondent on account of non-availability of work by the appellants, was wholly justified. 5. In view of the above, the instant Special Appeal is disposed of with the clarification that the action of the appellants, in dispensing with the services of the respondent, was fully justified, and in consonance with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 25.03.2010 25.03.2010 G