Narayan Shukla, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Mohd. Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Lalit Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE petitioners claim disobedience of order dated 1st of February, 2000, passed in writ petition No. 8 190 (SS) of 1993. The operative portion of the order is reproduced hereunder: In the result the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 18.2.1993 passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, a copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed and a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the petitioners to consider the case of the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 for regularisation under the Provisions of Rule 4 of the Regularisation Rules provided they fulfil the requirements of Rule 4(1)(ii) of the Regularisation Rules and they have completed three years continuous service. The said period of three years service shall be computed by taking into account the actual period during which the employees worked as Registration Clerk on daily wages basis. The period during which such an employee has performed the duties as Registration Clerk under paragraph 101 of the Manual, shall be counted as part of service for the purpose of such regularisation. The opposite parties No. 1 to 4 are also directed to file a representation to the petitioners within 4 weeks with a prayer for regularisation of their services and the petitioners will consider and dispose of the representation of the opposite parties 1 to 4 for regularisation within 8 weeks thereafter in the light of the observations made above and their candidature for regularisation will not be rejected on the ground that they were not continuing in service on the date of commencement of the 1998 Rules. It is also clarified that the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 will not claim any wages from the date of their disengagement till their services are regularised. No order as to costs. Through the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2, it has been submitted that in furtherance of consideration of the case of regularisation of all the daily wagers working in different districts including the case of petitioners, a Committee was constituted, which considered the same, but it did not find the petitioners entitled for regularisation and accordingly rejected the petitioners' representation. He further informs that the controversy was considered and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khagesh Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration reported in, 1996 SCC (L&S) 182., which has been overruled subsequently by another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi reported in : (2006) 4 SCC 1 as has been observed in paragraph 30 of the case of General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi and Ors. reported in : (2009) 7 SCC 205, which is reproduced hereunder: 30. Reliance placed on Khagesh Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration for the proposition that ad hoc appointees working for several years without break should be considered for regularisation in accordance with the Rules, in our opinion, is clearly inapplicable. In any event all such decisions must be held to have been overruled in Umadevi (3).
(3.) IN the light of aforesaid judgment, I am of the view that once the basis of the order goes, the consequential order itself finishes and it does not remain in existence for providing the benefit to any one.;