HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No.72 of 2006 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, P.W.D. Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun 2. Chief Engineer Level-I, PWD, Uttarakhand, Dehradun 3. Chief Engineer Level-II, PWD, Uttarakhand, Dehradun 4. Superintending Engineer, PWD, 12th Circle, Pithoragarh 5. Executive Engineer, PWD Provincial Division, Champawat … Appellants Versus Ashok Kumar Joshi S/o Sri Narayan Dutt Joshi … Respondent Dated:- 19th November, 2009 Coram: Hon. Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J. (Oral) Heard Sri B. K. Gupta, the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants – State and Sri C. D. Bahuguna, the learned counsel for the respondent. The present Special Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.12.2005, whereby the respondents/State (now ‘appellants’ in Special Appeal) were directed to consider the regularization of the writ petitioner (now ‘Respondent’ in Special Appeal), who was discharging the duties of a class-III post on daily wage basis. It transpires that the writ petitioner was employed on a class-IV post in the 1985, and since then, he was doing the work of a Typist / Clerk, which is a class-III post. Since unfair labour practice was being adopted and the writ petitioner was doing the work of class-III post for more than ten years, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition before the Court claiming regularization on a class-III post. The learned Single Judge, after considering the affidavits filed by the parties, gave a categorical finding, which is quoted hereunder:- “On perusal of Para.6 and 8-A of the writ petition as also on perusal of Annexure-1 and 2-A to the writ petition as also Annexure-R.A.-1 and 2 to the Rejoinder affidavit, it has been, prima-facie, established that the petitioner has been discharging the duties of class-III post in the department since the year 1985 and he was continuing to discharge the duties of class-III post on and before 30th the June 1998 and has been still discharging such duties continuously. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner deserves to be 2 considered for regularization on class-III post under the Regularization Rules of 2002.” In the light of the aforesaid finding, the learned Singe Judge, consequently, issued a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants to consider the regularization of the writ petitioner on a class-III post. The State - appellants being aggrieved has filed the present appeal. The learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants submitted that by the impugned order the learned Single Judge has virtually allowed the writ petitioner to be promoted to a class-III post, whereas the regularization, if any, could only be done on a class-IV post i.e. on the post of which the writ petitioner was working. In our opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is patently misconceived and bereft of merit. The learned Single Judge has given a prima facie finding that the writ petitioner was doing duties of a class-III post and, consequently, directed the appellants to consider the case of the writ petitioner for regularization on a class-III post. The respondents are required to consider the matter and pass orders appropriately after considering all aspects of the matter. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own cost. (Dharam Veer, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J.) Dated 19.11.2009 LSR