Lake Development Authority vs Mahesh Chandra Joshi

J.S. Khehar, C.J.—Through the instant special appeal, the Lake Development Authority, Nainital i.e. the appellant herein has as sailed the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a number of cases disposed of collectively including Writ Petition (S/S) No. 4726 of 2001 filed by Mahesh Chandra Joshi. In the afore said writ petition, the petitioner had claimed regularisation. Vide an order dated 29.06.2006, the learned Single Judge had issued a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Lake Development Authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation in the light of the observations made in the judgment.

During the course of hearing of the present special appeal, wherein learned Counsel for the respondent invited the Court�s attention to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors. (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, and more particularly the observations made in paragraph 53 thereof, which is being extracted hereunder:

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 regularisation 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 regularisation, 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 regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.

Based on the submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondent, learned Counsel for the appellant on the last date of hearing had sought an adjournment, so as to enable him to obtain instructions. Having obtained instructions he has informed us that the State Government has constituted a committee to take a policy decision on the issue of regularisation of the employees working in a temporary capacity for a period of more than ten years, whether or not their appointment is against the substantive post. The fact that such a committee has been constituted is affirmed by Shri J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel of the State of Uttarakhand. Based on the aforesaid learned Counsel for the appellant states, that the appellant is ready and willing to re-consider the claim of the respondent for regularisation in terms of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. However, the said consideration would be in the light of the determination rendered by the committee constituted by the State in compliance of Umadevi�s case (supra).

In view of the fair statement made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and keeping in mind the fact, that the respondent has been rendering service for a period of more than a decade since his induction into the employment of the Lake Development Authority, we are satisfied that till a final decision is taken by the appellant, in terms of the undertaking given to us, the respondent shall be permitted to continue in service, on the same terms and conditions as hitherto before. In that sense, the time permitted by the learned Single Judge to the appellant to take a final decision shall have to be extended, till a decision is taken by the appellant. Ordered accordingly.

With the consent of the learned Counsel for respondent, the instant special appeal is disposed of in terms of the statement made in this Court by the learned Counsel for the appellant.