COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 1960/2003 Mahendra Singh Mehta …….Petitioner Versus Acharya, Kshetriya Gramya Vikas Sansthan, Hawalbagh, Distt. Almora & Others …….Respondents Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 23rd May, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the Class IV post of Hammerman. Petitioner was initially engaged as Master Craftsman in House-Wiring trade and worked from time to time from 1.5.1990 to 31.3.1999. The said engagement of the petitioner was on honorarium basis in a project and the petitioner’s engagement came to an end on the closure of the project on 31.3.1999. Thereafter petitioner was appointed on the vacant post of Hammerman on contract basis vide order dated 2.7.2001, Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Thereafter the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 21.11.2003, Annexure 2 to the writ petition. These facts have not been disputed in the counter affidavit. 2. A perusal of the order dated 2.7.2001 vide which petitioner was appointed as Hammerman, Annexure 4 to 2 the writ petition, reveals that the petitioner was appointed on a clear vacant post of Hammerman taking into consideration the earlier services rendered by him in the project. But the petitioner could not be offered the regular appointment because the State Government had imposed a ban on new appointments vide order dated 3.11.1997. As such, the petitioner was engaged on contract basis. Thereafter, his services were terminated vide the impugned order. But no specific period of the contract was stipulated in the appointment letter dated 2.7.2001. 3. This Court passed an interim order on 31.12.2003 and the petitioner is still working in terms of the said interim order. The relevant para of the interim order dated 31.12.2003 is reproduced as under: “Meanwhile it is directed that the services of the petitioner shall not be dispensed with and work shall be taken from him as was earlier done in his case.” 4. Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein at para 53, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to provide that those daily wagers who have put in service of ten years or more, for them appropriate scheme shall be framed and they shall be regularized in phased manner. The extract of para 53 is quoted below: “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 3 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 abovereferred 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 regularization, 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 4 appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and above legal proposition, the writ petition is finally disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in consonance with the guidelines given by the Apex Court in Umadevi’s case within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. In the meantime, petitioner shall be paid salary equal to that of minimum of pay scale. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 23.5.2008 Prabodh