COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 1827/2001 (Old No. 24055/1999) Pramod Chandra Pant & Other …….Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Others …….Respondents Sri J.C. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Smt. Bina Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1. Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2. 2nd April, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 15.5.1999 (Annexure No. 18 to the writ petition), whereby the payment of regular salary to the petitioners was stopped. The petitioners have further prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize their services and to pay them the regular salary. 2. Petitioners were appointed as daily wagers in the Nagarpalika Parishad, Kichchha, District Udham Singh Nagar. Petitioner no. 1 was appointed as Clerk on 1.8.1989, while petitioner no. 2 was appointed as Lineman on 11.10.1989 and they are still continuing in the service. In spite of the resolution passed by the Nagarpalika Parishad and repeated representations made on behalf of the petitioners, their services could not be regularized. The payment of regular salary was also stopped by the impugned order dated 15.5.1999, which 2 they were getting in pursuance of the resolution earlier passed by the Nagarpalika Parishad. These facts have not been disputed in the counter affidavit. 3. In the counter affidavit, it has been contended that the petitioners are daily wagers and that regular posts were not sanctioned or created by the Government. Therefore, they are not entitled for regularization. But it is undisputed that the petitioners are working in the Nagarpalika Parishad since 1989 and they are still in service. As such they have put in more than 15 years of continuous service. 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 temporary employees or 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 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 3 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 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 4 production of certified copy of this order. In the meantime, petitioners shall be paid salary equal to that of minimum of pay scale of their respective posts. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) Prabodh