IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 665 of 2009 (S/S) Balram Singh S/o Sri Bhagwat Singh At present working as Beldar, In the office of Executive Engineer, Construction Division, P.W.D. Ramnagar, District Nainital. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Public Works Department Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. Chief Engineer, Level –I, Uttarakhand, P.W.D., Dehradun. 3. Chief Engineer Kumaon Kshetra, P.W.D. Almora. 4. Executive Engineer Provincial Division, P.W.D. Nainital. 5. Executive Engineer Construction Division P.W.D. Ramnagar, Nainital. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 20th of April 2000, passed by Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works 2 Department, Nainital, whereby petitioner’s regularization was cancelled. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits on record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was inducted as Beldar on daily wages in the Public Works Department, in the year 1980. In the year 1984, he was appointed in the work charge establishment. Since then, the petitioner was continuously working prior to 29.06.1991. The Chief Engineer (Headquarters), Public Works Department, Lucknow, vide letter dated 03.07.1999 has issued a circular for regularization of the work charge employees, in pursuance to which Chief Engineer, Level –II, Kumaon Region, Almora, issued necessary instructions, in compliance of which a Selection Committee was constituted, and petitioner’s services were regularized w.e.f. 07.08.1999 (copy Annexure –1 to the writ petition). However, vide impugned order dated 20th of April 2000, the regularization was cancelled by respondent No. 4 on the ground that the Government Order and the vacancies were wrongly interpreted. It appears that similarly situated employees challenged the order before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1867 (S/S) of 2003, which was decided vide order dated 17th of September 2003, quashing the order dated 20th of April 2000, whereby regularization of the petitioner and of similarly 3 situated persons, was cancelled. It appears that the respondents challenged the aforesaid order before Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.01.2009 (copy Annexure –4 to the writ petition) passed in Special Appeal No. 01 of 2005; State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Diwani Ram and others (alongwith connected matters), disposed of the appeals with the observation that after order dated 20th of April 2000, was passed, several vacancies have arisen and the writ petitioners of said cases were directed to be considered for their regularization, within a period of three months. 4) From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 to 5, it appears that above facts stated in the writ petition are admitted. The only point raised is that the present petitioner has filed writ petition at a belated stage. 5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the affidavits on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be discriminated only on the ground that he did not file the writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be decided in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 09.01.2009, in Special Appeal No. 01 of 2005; State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Diwani Ram and others, as said judgment has been followed in the identical cases. 4 6) For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in the manner cases of similarly situated work charge employees were considered by them, in compliance of order dated 09.01.2009, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in Special Appeal No. 01 of 2005; State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Diwani Ram and others. (Both Stay Application No. 5386 of 2009 as well as Misc. Application No. 10375 of 2009 also stand disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. December 01, 2009. H. Negi