- (1.) HEARD Mr.G.C.Verma, Mr.M.Tauseef and Mr.Manish Mathur, learned counsels for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioners, being engaged as daily wagers since 1995 to 1997 and continuously working as such, have completed about more than 16 to 10 years service. Under the strength of their long spell of working in the department, they claim their regularization in service as well as payment of salary in the regular pay scale.
(3.) THE State Government has framed the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 (in short the 'Rules'), Rule 4.(1) (i)& (ii), of which provides as under: - "4.Regularization of daily wages appointments on Group 'D, Post. - (1) Any person who - (i)was directly appointed on daily wages basis on a Group 'D' post in the Government service before June, 29, 1991 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules: and (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such appointment on daily wages basis under the relevant service rules, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available in Group 'D' post, on the date of commencement of these rules on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders." In light of the aforesaid Rule, when I examined the petitioners' case, I found that they are not covered under the cut of date for consideration of their regular appointment, therefore, at this stage their claim for regularization cannot be granted. On being unsuccessful in their claim for regularization at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner further claims that keeping in view their continuous working since more than ten years, this court may consider to extend the benefit for payment of minimum of the pay scales to the petitioners of class IV employees. He in support of his submission also cited the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: - (1) State of U.P. and others versus Putti Lal, 2002 2 UPLBEC 1595. (2) Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi (3) and others, 2006 4 SCC 1. In Putti Lal's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 5 has held as under: - "5.In several cause this Court applying the principle of equal pay for equal work has held that a daily wager, if he is discharging the similar duties as these in the regular employment of the Government, should at least be entitled to receive the minimum of the pay scale though he might not be entitled to any increment or any other allowance that is permissible to his counter part, in the Government. In our opinion that would be the correct position and was therefore, direct that these daily -wagers would be entitled to draw at the minimum of the pay scale being received by their counter part in the Government and would not be entitled to any other allowances or increment so long as they continue on daily wager. The question of their regular absorption with obviously be dealt with in accordance with the statutory rule already referred to.";