I. M. Quddusi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P. K. Srivastava and the learned counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner No. 1 which is an organization of daily wage employees working in the office of opposite parties No. 1 and 2, i.e., in the department of labour, Government of U. P. have sought relief for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the regularisation of the members of the petitioner before making any fresh selection on the post of Instructors in various Industrial Training Institutes and further commanding the opposite parties to allow them to continue on their posts till they are considered for regularization in accordance with U. P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointment (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1979'). The brief facts of the case are that the members of the petitioner are working on daily wage basis as Instructor in various Industrial Training Institutes. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Khagesh Kumar and others v. Inspector General of Registration and others, AIR 1996 SC 417, by which the judgment and order dated February 8, 1995, passed by Division Bench of this Court was upheld by the Apex Court with the following directions : (1) The petitioners or other similarly placed persons who were employed as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis prior to October 1, 1986, shall be considered for regularization under the provisions of Rule 4 (1) (ii) 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 employee had worked as Registration Clerk on daily wage basis. The period during which such an employee has performed the duties of Registration Clerk under paragraph 101 of the Manual, shall be counted as part of service for the purpose of such regularisation. (2) In the event of appointment on regular basis on the post of Registration Clerks, the petitioners or other similarly placed persons who had worked as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis, may be given one opportunity of being considered for such appointment and they be given relaxation in the matter of age requirement prescribed for such appointment under the Rules. (3) The Subordinate Service Selection Commission while making selection for regular appointment to the posts of Registration Clerks, shall give weightage for their experience to the Registration Clerks who have worked on daily wage basis and shall frame suitable guidelines for that purpose. (4) If any of the petitioners or other similarly placed persons was required to perform the duties of Registration Clerk as an Apprentice under paragraph 101 of the Manual, he may submit a representation to the appropriate authority setting out the full particulars of such employment within three months and the concerned authority, after verifying the correctness of the said claim, shall pass the necessary order for the period he is found to have so worked on the post of Registration Clerk. The said payment shall be made within a period of three months from the date of submission of the representation."
(3.) THE above quoted case related to the persons employed on daily wage basis as Registration Clerks in the Registration Department of the Government of U. P. and the question of their regularization was involved before the Division Bench of this Court. In that case, a number of writ petitions were filed in this Court by the employees who were working as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis for their regularization and for the quashing of Press Notification inviting applications for appointment on the posts of Registration Clerks. Many of these writ petitions had been disposed of by learned single Judges of this Court and special appeals against these judgments were pending before the Division Bench while other writ petitions were pending for disposal before learned single Judges. In large number of cases interim orders had been passed directing that the petitioners in the writ petitions may be allowed to continue in service during the pendency of the writ petitions. One such writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3721 of 1990, Majeed and others v. State of U. P. and others) filed at the Lucknow Bench of this Court had been allowed by a learned single Judge and the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No......./93 (C.C. No. 121212 of 1991) filed against the said judgment was dismissed on the ground of delay by this Court by order dated August 10, 1993. All the special appeals and writ petitions that were pending in the High Court at Allahabad as well as at the Lucknow Bench, were taken up and were disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by the impugned judgment dated 8.2.1995. The contention of Sri P. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner is that following the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case of persons appointed on daily wage basis as Clerks in the Registration Department, the petitioners of the instant writ petition, who were also appointed on daily wage basis, are entitled to get similar relief.;