- (1.) The Special Appeal arises from an order of the learned Single Judge dated 2 December 2013. In the petition which the appellants filed, they sought to challenge an order dated 28 September 2013 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Ballia declining to regularise the services of the appellants and sought a mandamus for regularisation of their services and for payment of salary from July 2011. Before the learned Single Judge and before this Court in Appeal, it is not in dispute that the appellants were engaged as daily wage employees in November 1995. When their engagement was discontinued on 25 April 1996, they filed a petition to challenge the orders in which an interim order was passed on 21 May 1996. By virtue of the interim order, the appellants continued on daily wages until the petition was eventually disposed of on 1 May 2013 by directing the respondents to consider their claim for regularisation in accordance with the regularisation rules, if any. Pursuant to that direction, the plea for regularisation was rejected on 28 September 2013 which led to the filing of a fresh petition, which was dismissed on 2 December 2013. Before this Court in Appeal, it has been fairly stated that there is no statutory rule for claiming regularisation. However, regularisation has been claimed on the strength of an order of the learned Single Judge dated 4 November 2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 1634 (S/S) of 1999.
(2.) From the records of the case, it would emerge that a Special Appeal is pending against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 1634 (S/S) of 1999 but, in view of certain contempt proceedings, the order for regularization was passed subject to the decision in Appeal. Be that as it may, it is now well-settled that Regularisation is not a vested right and in the absence of statutory rules, such relief cannot be granted. Hence, the learned Single Judge was not in error in declining to grant relief for regularisation of service in the absence of any right. The alternate prayer before the learned Single Judge, which it is submitted has not been considered, was payment of the salary to the appellants from July 2011. In so far as this aspect is concerned, the learned Single Judge has not considered the prayer. All that is to be observed is that it would be open to the appellants to move the third respondent for the payment of their wages for the period during" which they actually worked in pursuance of the order which was passed in the previous writ petition and if such a claim is made, it shall be duly considered in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.;