Om Prakash J. - (1.) THIS is a special appeal against the judgment dated 29th March, 1993 of the learned Single Judge giving several directions for regularising the services of daily/casual labourers working in the High Court for a year or more on the posts in different categories of class IV cadre and giving them complete parity with the regular members of class IV cadre in respect of other allowance, benefits, facilities etc. He further directed that the list of daily/casual labourers doing regular work shall be amalgamated and a combined seniority list will be drawn reckoning their seniority with effect from initial appointment; that services of casual labourers doing work of regular nature for one year or more shall not be dispensed with that the Chief Justice shall with the approval of the Governor determine the strength of class IV cadre afresh within a period of four months; that if the respondents to the petition fail to take steps within the stipulated period, then temporary posts equal to the number of daily/casual labourers continuously working for a year or more shall be deemed to have been created; that regularisation will be completed against the posts created or deemed to have been created; that remaining daily/casual labourers shall be regularised gradually in future vacancy; that there shall be no examination at the time of regularisation; physical fitness and the conduct shall mainly be the test of suitability and that eligibility of age will be determined with effect from the date of initial appointment and not with reference to the date of regularisation.
(2.) THE petition giving rise to this appeal was filed by the association of class IV employees working in the Allahabad High Court praying that the respondents be directed to regularise the services of all class IV daily wagers who have been working in the High Court from 1979 to 1981. Also they sought a further writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide all the facilities and other financial benefits to the petitioner (daily wager class IV unregularised employees) which are being paid to the permanent class IV employees. So relief no. 1 was confined to regularisation of daily wagers who worked in the High Court from 1979 to 1981 and relief no. 2 relates to the daily wagers who started working after the year of 1981 for such class of daily wagers parity is claimed with the permanent class IV employees only in the matter of facilities and financial benefits'. No other relief was sought for them. Annexure '1' to the writ petition is a combined list of daily labourers selected for appointment to the post of peon. In para 5 of the writ petition, it is stated that employees at serial no. 1 to 70 in the said list have already been regularised and they have been made permanent. In para 4 of the writ petition, it is averred that 'This petition concerns itself with the employees whose names are mentioned at serial no. 71 and onwards." From these averments, it is amply clear that the relief of regularisation was sought only in respect of the employees, whose names arpeared at serial no. 71 to 116 in the list (Annexure '1' to the petition). Sri K. B. Mathur, learned Standing Counsel clearly stated at the Bar that the employees of serial no. 71 to 116 in the said list have already been regularised as peons. To that extent, the writ petition has become infructuous. In regard to relief no. 2, the stand of the respondents in the writ petition was that the daily labourers are not entitled to claim the facilities and other financial benefits, which are available to the permanent class IV employees.
(3.) THE claim of regularisation having been confined only to the employees appearing at serial no. 71 to 116 of the list (Annexure no. '1' to the petition) and they having already been regularised as peons the grievance of the petitioners ceased to that extent but the learned Single Judge suomoto widened the scope Of the writ petition observing : "To complete the chain of facts, it may be stated that during course of the arguments, it did appear to me necessary with a view to avoiding multiplicity of litigation to address myself to the cause of daily rated/casual employees belonging to class IV cadre in the establishment of the High Court as a whole and not only in respect of those who are cevered by the list (Annexure no. 1 to the petition ............" --- , (Emphasis ours) The hearing in the writ petition was closed on 26-9-91. But learned single Judge listed the petition vide order dated 6-12-1991 for further hearing in January, 1992 directing- the respondents to file supplementary-counter- affidavit to furnish more details. This is how the writ petition was further heard and was decided by impugned judgment dated March 29, 1993, which has been appealed against by the State of U. P. only.;