- (1.) The Petitioners have sought regularisation of their services by invoking provisions of U.P. Regularisation of Group-D Employees Appointment on Daily Wages Rules, 2001 (in short 'Regularisation Rules of 2001'). The Petitioners were appointed on the post of Mali (Group-D employees) in Horticulture Department. The service profile of the Petitioners are given below: JUDGEMENT_373_LAWS(ALL)8_20111.html
(2.) The Petitioners were working continuously on the post of Mali ever since they were initially appointed except for some intermittent breaks in their services for shorter period of time. Having worked continuously for a long time they are claiming regularisation of their services under aforementioned Regularisation Rules of 2001. The requirement of the aforementioned Rules is that the person should be appointed on or before the year 1991 which date now has been extended up to year 1998. Despite the Rules being in place, the Respondents have not regularised their services till date.
(3.) On the other hand, the stand of the Respondents is that the Petitioners are not eligible to be regularised under the aforesaid Regularisation Rules as they are working as casual workers and not on daily wages basis. It is further contended that the Petitioners are not working against the substantive vacancies which clearly debar them from consideration under the Regularisation Rules of 2001. Their engagement was dependent upon the availability of the work and termination at the completion of the said work.;