MAHIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the peti tioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to appoint the petitioner on regular basis in a Group 'd' post under U. P Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying In Harness Rules, 1974.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in regu lar service of respondent Department and covered under clause (iii ). However, he could not show when the appointment let ter was issued to Govind Singh, father of the petitioner, against a regular vacancy and in which pay scale. As such it cannot be said that the petitioner's father was working for more than three years in a regular vacancy. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Putti Lai's case, the apex court has directed the State Government to formulate the scheme and the regularization process was on. Simply because the regularization process was on, it cannot be said that the petitioner's fa ther completed three years of continuous service against a regular vacancy. From the petition itself it is clear that the petitioner too has already engaged on daily wages (after this Court passed the order in Writ Petition No. 1078 of 2005 (S/s) and be fore Writ Petition No. 724 of 2006 (S/s) was dismissed) by the respondent Depart ment, but he wants regular appointment.