JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Since the factual matrix of the above noted writ petitions and law governing the field is the same, therefore, all the writ petitions are being decided together, by a common judgment, for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2. By means of above noted writ petitions, the petitioners seek following relief, among others: “Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to forthwith regularize the services of the petitioners on the post of Paryvaran Mitra/Safai Karamchari, pursuant to Regularization Rules, and also considering one time settlement for regular posting as approved by State Government, petitioners further prays for a direction to the respondents to grant minimum of Regular Pay Scale along with Dearness Allowances of the post of Paryavaran Mitra /Safai Karamchari on the principle of equal pay for equal work (as revised from time to time). 3. Petitioners were appointed on contractual basis in Nagar Palika, Rudrapur, between 2003 to 2007 as Safai Karmcharis and have been working continuously without break till date. Nagar Palika, Rudrapur, was upgraded to Nagar Nigam in 2013, vide G.O. dated 22.11.2016. Vide G.O. dated 23.11.2016 & G.O. No. 1405/IV (1)/2016-01 (32)/14 dated 19.12.2016, the State Government created as may as 859 posts of Safai Karmcharis/Paryvaran Mitras and also provided for Regularization Rules, 2013 as part of one time settlement. In pursuance of the aforesaid G.O. No. 1405/IV (1)/2016-01 (32)/14 dated 19.12.2016, the Additional Director, Urban Development Directorate, Dehradun, vide letter dated 21.12.2016, directed various Nagar Nigams of the State to regularize the services of 859 Safai Karmcharies/Paryavaran Mitras in the State by means of a selection committee constituted for the purpose. The said letter consisted of the names and details of 859 incumbents, whose services were to be regularized on the basis of One Time Settlement as declared by the State. 4. In spite of the clear dictates of the State Government and in spite of the selection of the petitioners’ name by the Selection Committee constituted by the State Government, respondent no. 4, by wrongly applying the dictum of this Court (in judgment dated 24.01.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 154 of 2017, Himanshu Joshi and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others), vide impugned letter dated 01.04.2017 requested for instructions from the Government. 4, by wrongly applying the dictum of this Court (in judgment dated 24.01.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 154 of 2017, Himanshu Joshi and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others), vide impugned letter dated 01.04.2017 requested for instructions from the Government. A similar letter dated 02.06.2017 was written by the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Udham Singh Nagar to the Additional District Magistrate, Nazul, thereby requested for instructions in the matter for regularization of the employees of the Nagar Nigam. 5. On the letter of respondent no. 4, the Director, Urban Development, Dehradun vide letter dated 01.05.2017, addressed to the Secretary, Urban Development Department, apprised the State Government that in spite of One Time Settlement, as issued by the State Government, the employees of the various Nagar Nigams were agitating and sought for the instructions from the State Government. 6. It is submitted that Additional Secretary, Urban Development Department, vide impugned letter dated 10.07.2017, addressed to the Director, Urban Development, Dehradun, has wrongly observed that in view of the judgment/order dated 24.01.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 154 of 2017, Himanshu Joshi and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, this Court has stayed the Regularisation Rules and no regularization could be done. 7. In pursuance to the aforesaid, the Director, Urban Development, Dehradun, vide order dated 17.07.2017 has written to the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigams, as well as the Executive Officers of all the Nagar Palikas that in view of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 154 of 2017, Himanshu Joshi and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, the regularisation of the Nagar Nigam Employees was not proper. 8. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that, in fact, this Hon’ble Court, vide judgment and order dated 24.01.2017, passed in Writ Petition No. 154 of 2017, Himanshu Joshi and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, had only prohibited the regularisation of incumbents by means of outsourcing under the Regularisation Rules, 2016, while as per the G.O. No. 1405/IV (1)/2016-01 (32)/14 dated 19.12.2016, the State Government had created as many as 859 posts of Safai Karmcharis/Paryvaran Mitras and also provided for regularization of the employees as per the Regularisation Rules, 2013. Thus, the order dated 21.01.2017 passed in writ petition no. 154 of 2017, Himanshu Joshi and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others has no application in the mater. Thus, the order dated 21.01.2017 passed in writ petition no. 154 of 2017, Himanshu Joshi and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others has no application in the mater. In fact, according to the petitioners, this Court vide order dated 24.01.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 154 of 2017, Himanshu Joshi and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others has stayed Government Order dated 14.12.2016 (wrongly mentioned as 14.12.2015) dealing with the grant of contractual services to outsourced employees in the State and the said order did not place any legal impediment in the regularisation of the petitioners. 9. The other Paryavaran Mitras in other Nagar Nigams /Nagar Palikas/Nagar Panchayats, namely, Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital; Nagar Palika Parishad, Kichcha (U.S. Nagar); Nagar Palika Parishad Khatima (U.S. Nagar); Nagar Palika Parishad Dididhat (Pithoragarh); Nagar Palika Parishad Srinagar (Gahrwal) Nagar Palika Parishad Gauchar (Chamoli) and Nagar Palika Parishad, Rudraprayag have already been regularized. 10. The names of the petitioners had been forwarded by the Nagar Nigam, Rudrapur, vide letter no. 109/2015-16, dated 25.05.2015, as per One Time Settlement Scheme of the State Government. 11. The petitioners have been running from pillar to post for their regularization as Safai Karmchari, for which the petitioners hold necessary qualification and experience. Petitioners submit that they have rendered service of 14 years as Safai Karmchari/Paryvaran Mitra and the selection committee constituted by the State Government has already recommended for petitioners’ regularisation on the basis of One Time Settlement, petitioners’ name find place in the list issued by the Selection Committee of the State and as such there is no legal impediment in their regularisation as Safai Karmchari/Paryvaran Mitra. 12. The petitioners have made representation on 30.03.2017 to the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Rudrapur praying for their regularisation as Safai Karmchari/Paryavaran Mitra, but to no avail. 13. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that policy decision has been taken by the Government whereby as One Time Settlement, 859 posts of Safari Karmchari/Paryavaran Mitra have been created. 14. 13. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that policy decision has been taken by the Government whereby as One Time Settlement, 859 posts of Safari Karmchari/Paryavaran Mitra have been created. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the letter dated 17th July, 2017, (annexure-7) to the writ petition, issued by Director, Urban Development, which is addressed to all the Municipal Commissioners, it will not be possible to regularize the services of the petitioners in the light of the order dated 24.01.2017 passed by this Court in WPSS No. 154 of 2017, Himanshu Joshi and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. Order dated 24.01.2017 passed in WPSS No. 154 of 2017 is the only hindrance in regularising the petitioners. 15. It will be appropriate to quote para 8 of the Order dated 24.01.2017 passed by learned Vacation Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 154 of 2017, Himanshu Joshi and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, herein below for convenience: “I stay the operation of the impugned Government Order immediately and hereby direct that no contract workers much less a daily wager shall be regularized pursuant to the Government Notification No 337/XXX(2)/2016/03(01), 2006, Dehradun dated 14th December, 2016 by any office of the Government.” [Emphasis supplied] 16. A perusal of the order dated 24.01.2017 would reveal that this Court has only restrained the regularisation of incumbents by means of outsourcing under the Regularisation Rules, 2016. The fact of the matter is that the petitioners are claiming regularisation under the Regularisation Rules, 2013 Rules and not under 2016 Rules. Therefore, the order dated 24.01.2017 referred to in letter dated 17th July, 2017 will not come in the way of regularisation of the petitioners under 2013 Rules. 17. To sum up, the only controversy is-whether Order dated 24.01.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 154 of 2017 is applicable to the case of the petitioners or not? It may be reiterated that learned Judge, while passing order on 24.01.2017 has referred to the Regularisation Rules 2016, whereas present petitioners owe their regularisation under Regularisation Rules, 2013. The case of the petitioners has also been recommended by Nagar Nigam, Rudrapur and, therefore, there seems to be no legal impediment in considering the regularisation of the petitioners. It may be reiterated that learned Judge, while passing order on 24.01.2017 has referred to the Regularisation Rules 2016, whereas present petitioners owe their regularisation under Regularisation Rules, 2013. The case of the petitioners has also been recommended by Nagar Nigam, Rudrapur and, therefore, there seems to be no legal impediment in considering the regularisation of the petitioners. The petitioners of these writ petitions and petitioners of Writ Petition No. 154 of 2017 are on different footing and, therefore, order dated 24.01.2017 is not applicable to the present petitions. 18. Writ petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the regularisation of the petitioners according to G.O. dated 22.11.2016, G.O. dated 23.11.2016, as per the Regularisation Rules, 2013, at an early date, preferably within 10 weeks of production of certified copy of this Order.