Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition (S/S) No.371 of 2004 Suresha Nand Pokhriyal ……. Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal through Forest Secretary, Uttaranchal Shasan, Dehradun and others. ……. Respondents ………………….. Sri M.C.Kandpal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents. Date: May 14, 2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. By means of this petition the petitioner seeks writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the petitioner on Class IV post in the Forest Department and to pay him regular monthly salary alongwith dearness allowance as is being paid to the regular employees. 2. The petitioner was engaged in the Forest Department on daily wages from 15.02.1984 and by an order dated 15.07.1984 the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Chakrata Soil Conservation, Forest Division, Kalsi appointed the petitioner against the vacant post of Dak- Runner on daily wages. It is alleged that one post of Orderly is vacant in the office in which the petitioner is working on the post of Dak Runner. The petitioner has completed more than 23 years service in the Department 2 but he has not regularized and is not being paid regular monthly salary. 3. It is admitted to the respondents that the petitioner has completed more than 23 years’ service. It is stated that the Conservator of Forest, Yamuna Circle had requested the higher authority to obtain the sanction of temporary posts from the government for five dak runners and one attendant but due to want of sanction the petitioner’s services could not be regularized. In para 10 of the counter affidavit the respondents also admitted that the petitioner is entitled for regularization as per his continuity on daily wages. 4. From perusal of the counter affidavit it appears that the efforts were made for regularizing the services of the employees working on daily wages but still the matter for regularization is pending. 5. Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. versus Umadevi & others, reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases, Page 1 , wherein at Para 53, the 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. Para 53 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (State of Mysore v. 3 S.V. Narayanappa, (1967) 1 SCR 128), R.N. Nanjundappa (R.N.Nanjundappa v. T.Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409) and B.N.Nagarajan (B.N.Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC, 507) 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 above referred 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 4 constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 6. Here in the present case, the petitioner has completed more than 23 years and, therefore, in terms of the aforesaid observation made by the Apex Court, the petitioner’s case for regularization cannot be thrown out as laid down by the Apex Court in Umadevi’s case (supra). 7. Since the petitioner has completed more than 23 years of service, therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in consonance with the guidelines laid by the Apex Court in the aforesaid paragraph of Umadevi’s case (supra) within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 8. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 14.05.2008 P.Singh 5