HARSH SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India for writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision dated 08 -01 -2004 taken by the Regularization Committee of Uttaranchal Forest Department. The petitioner has also sought mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the service of petitioner under the Uttaranchal Forest Department Regularization (on Group D post) of Daily Wages Appointment Rules, 2003.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed on daily wages as a helper of Forest Guard in the year 1985 in the Forest range Dhumakot, district Pauri Garhwal. He continuously worked till 18 -06 -1997 when during the course of employment the petitioner fell on a live wire of high power transmission line of electricity and got badly damaged his right hand. He was taken to Safdarjang hospital, New Delhi on 20 -06 -1997 and on medical advise his right hand was amputated. After getting discharge from the hospital on 30 -12 -1997 he was advised by the doctors, rest for further six months. Petitioner could not join his duties till June, 1998 as he was injured during the course of employment and was under medical treatment and medical rest. In July 1998 he again started working on daily wages in Dhumakot forest range of Garhwal Forest Division as wireless operator. Many daily wage workers including the petitioner filed a writ petition for regularization in service which was tagged with the case of "Putti Lal". In view of the directions of the Apex Court passed in the case of Putti Lal Vs State of Uttaranchal, the Uttaranchal Forest Department Regularization (on Group D posts) of Daily Wages Appointment Rules, 2003 were framed. Under the said Rules all those daily wage workers in service from the period before June 29, 1991 and working on the commencement of the said Rules, 2003 were considered for regular appointment by the State Level Selection Committee. The petitioner was high school passed, as such, he fulfilled all the conditions for regularization. Respondent NO.3 Divisional Forest Officer, Garhwal Forest Division recommended the case of petitioner for regularization. However, the petitioner's case was not considered fairly and a writ petition Lodging No. 571 of 2003 was filed for mandamus directing the respondent to regularize his services which was disposed of on 04 -12 -2003 with the direction to the respondent to consider the regularization of the petitioner. However, regularization of the petitioner was rejected by the Regularization Committee of the respondents on the flimsy grounds that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in the year 1997 and 1998. Aggrieved by the same present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents counter affidavit has been filed and in the brief history in the case contained therein they have admitted that the petitioner worked as daily wager in Diva range of Garhwal forest division since 1985 except the break from 19 -06 -1997 to June, 1998. In the counter affidavit it is further stated that for regularization 240 days work was essential in every calendar year for continuous service, as such, the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions for the regularization.