IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1038 of 2005 (S/S) Dan Singh Bisht S/o Shri Nar Singh Bisht..……… Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Van Vikash Nigam and others ……… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri S.C. Bhatt, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.C.S. Rawat, the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the service with all consequential benefits pursuant to his acquittal from the criminal court and further to regularize the petitioner from the date when his juniors were regularized. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner was working with the Uttaranchal Van Vikas Nigam as a Chawkidar. It is alleged that he was initially appointed in the year 1985 by the U.P. Van Vikash Nigam as a daily rated Chawkidar and worked till 1993 when he was falsely implicated in a criminal case. The petitioner contends that the criminal court acquitted him by a judgment dated 08/10/2004 and, therefore, the petitioner applied for reinstatement. Since, the respondents took no action, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed saying that the petitioner was not in the regular service of the respondents and that he was appointed on a daily rated basis on account of exigency of service during the season. The respondents further contended that upon lodging of the first information report, the petitioner vanished and since he was a daily rated worker, the question of initiating a disciplinary proceeding did not arise. The respondents contended that the mere fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in a 2 criminal case does not entitle him for reinstatement in the regular service of the respondents or regularise his services. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that the fact that the petitioner was working on daily rated basis during the season intermittently has not been denied by him. Consequently, the court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement merely on the ground of acquittal. The writ petition is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 25.02.2010 Shiv