Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) PURSUANT to the order dated 4.2.2010, the opposite party is present. In response to the notice a reply has been filed by the opposite party to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed.
(2.) THIS Court had passed a detailed order on 30.11.2009, which was reiterated on 23.12.2009. The applicant was working as a Group 'D' Employee in the Forest Department since July 1987 on daily wage basis. The services of a large number of similarly situate daily wage employees working in the Forest Department were not being regularised despite they having put in several years of service as daily wagers. Such daily wagers filed petitions before this Court, claiming regularisation pursuant to the Regularisation Rules, 2001 namely The U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001. A controversy arose with regard to the implementation of the said Rules and also with regard to the question where some of these daily wagers had not worked for certain periods during the long tenure as daily wagers. Such a situation had not only arisen in the Forest Department but also in other departments, including Horticulture Department. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jag Lal and Ors. v. Director, Horticulture, U.P., Lucknow and Ors., 2003(3) E.S.C. 1745, after considering the 2001 Regularisation Rules, had issued five directions to be considered while considering the case for regularisation of such daily wagers. In direction No. 2 it had been specifically provided that the cases of all such candidates were to be considered for regularisation, who were appointed and working before June 29, 1991 and were continuing in service on the date of the commencement of the Rules i.e. 21.12.2001, ignoring any break or breaks in service in between the said period. With regard to the Forest Department in the case of Mahkar Singh, who had filed Writ Petition No. 19531 of 2002, the learned Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition following the judgment in the case of Jag Lal (supra), vide order dated 4.2.2004. The writ petition filed by the applicant being Writ Petition No. 23659 of 2002 was disposed of vide order dated 27.2.2004 on the same terms and conditions as contained in the case of Mahkar Singh (supra).
(3.) BEFORE referring to the special appeal filed in the case of the applicant it would be relevant to mention that against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Jag Lal (supra) no intra court appeal was filed. However, in the case of Brijendra Malviya and Ors., who were similarly situated as the applicant, the State had filed an intra court appeal, registered as Special Appeal No. 334 of 2004 (D), State of U.P. v. Brijendra Malviya and Ors. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 27.4.2004 partly allowed the said appeal and without touching the direction Nos. 2 and 3 in the case of Jag Lal (supra) modified the direction No. 4 partly and set aside the direction No. 5 thereof, which related to the payment of minimum pay scale to the daily wagers, as according to the Division Bench until and unless they were regularised they would not be entitled to the payment of minimum pay scale. The intra court appeal filed by the State in the case of the applicant being Special Appeal No. 970 of 2004 (D), the Divisional Forest Officer and Ors. v. Dharampal, was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 9.11.2004 on the same terms and conditions as contained in the judgment of the Division Bench dated 24.7.2004 in the case of Brijendra Malviya and Ors. (supra). Litigation between the State and the applicant came to rest at this stage.;