COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 7037/2001 Manoj Kumar Tiwari …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal, Through the Forest Secretary, Dehradun & Others …….Respondents Sri A.D. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 8th 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. The petitioner was engaged in service on 1.9.1987 as daily wages clerk in the office of the respondent no. 4 i.e. Divisional Forest Officer, East Almora Forest Division, Almora. Since then the petitioner is continuously discharging his duties. In the seniority list of the labourers, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, the name of the petitioner figures at serial no. 1 of Group ‘C’ category and describes his educational qualification as Intermediate and work as typist. The petitioner has also filed a certificate dated 13.12.2000, issued by the respondent no. 4 to the effect that the petitioner has been continuously working in his office since 1.9.1987 as a typist. These facts have not been disputed in the counter affidavit. 2 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the services of the petitioner should be regularized in view of the provisions contained in “The U.P. Regularization of Daily Wags Appointment on Group ‘C’ Posts (Outside the Purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998”. Rule 4 of the said rules provides that any person who was directly appointed on daily wage basis on Group ‘C’ posts in Government service before June 29, 1991 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules and possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such appointment under the relevant service rules on daily wages basis, shall be considered for regular appointment on Group ‘C’ post in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the date of commencement of these rules. 3. 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 B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been 3 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 appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 4 4. Here in the present case, the petitioner was initially appointed on 1.9.1987 and as such, has put in more than 20 years of service and is still working. Therefore, in terms of the aforesaid lines, the petitioner’s case for regularization cannot be thrown out as laid down by the Apex Court in Umadevi’s case. 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.) 8.5.2008 Prabodh