Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J. - (1.) The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed, inter-alia, praying for the following reliefs: i) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to strictly comply the judgement and order dated 21.02.2002 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3624 of 1998 (State of U.P. vs. Putti Lal) and extend the benefit of the same in the case of the petitioner; ii) Issue a writ order or direction for declaring Clause 4(1), 4(b), 4(3) of the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group D Post Rules, 2001 to be ultra virus and frame a scheme for the regularization of the employees who have rendered 10 years of service as per undertaking given before this Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Putti Lal; iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Chaukidar and pay the minimum of regular pay scale pending writ petition on Group D Post; iv) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to orally remove the petitioner and permit him to work on the post of Chaukidar pending writ petition.
(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is working in Rural Engineering Services Department, Sumerpur Store as a Chaukidar/Peon on 23.01.1995. The Rural Engineering Services Department (hereinafter referred to as the 'Department') is a permanent department having permanent officials, site, but still the petition is being paid the minimum daily wages of Rs.58 per day to be paid monthly. In the Department of Sumerpur Store, the petitioner and one Jai Ram are working as daily wager Chaukidar/Peon and there is no other permanent Chaukidar/Peon. Both are performing their duty day and night. They have completed more than 18 years of their services on 22.01.2013, but the respondent-department deliberately neither regularized their service nor provided the minimum wages as per Rules in spite of the order of this Court dated 19.03.2010.
(3.) On 23.05.2008, this Court passed the interim order and directed that as an interim measure, the respondents are restrained from dispensing with the services of the petitioner and petitioner will also be permitted to continue in service and shall be paid his salary till the next date of listing.;