Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) Heard Sri H.N.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has appeared for the State respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Nripendra Misra for Respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5.
(2.) The petitioner claims that he has been working on daily wage basis for the last ten years. He is aggrieved by an order dated 5.7.2005 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Processing & Cold Storage Federation Ltd., Lucknow, Respondent no.4, whereby it has been directed that no work may be taken from any daily wage worker. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that initially the petitioner was being paid on daily wage basis but thereafter the petitioner is now being paid fixed emoluments of Rs.2700/- per month and thus he has acquired the status of a temporary employee. It has, accordingly been contended that in such view of the matter, the services of the petitioner cannot be dispensed with by the order dated 5.7.2005. In support of his contention that if a casual labourer has continued to work for a fairly long spell, a presumption would be raised that there is regular need for his services and thus it would become obligatory on the authority to examine the feasibility of his regularization, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh AIR1992 SC 2130 , JT1992 (5)SC 179 , (1993)II LLJ937 SC , (1992)102 PLR547 , 1992 (2)SCALE384 , (1992)4 SCC118 , [1992]3 SCR826 , 1992 (3)SLJ34 (SC), 1992 (2)UJ692 (SC), (1992)2 UPLBEC1353 ; and Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar AIR2001 SC 706 , [2001 (89)FLR18], JT2001 (2)SC 16 , (2001)I LLJ710 SC , 2001 (1)SCALE270 , (2001)3 SCC574 , 2001 (2)UJ922 (SC), (2001)1 UPLBEC834 .
(3.) A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Lal Mohammad v. Indian Railway Construction Company Limited 2004 Allahabad Civil Journal 1675 : (2004) 3 ESC 1362 has categorically held that court cannot direct regularization of those working on contract basis de hors the service/recruitment rules. While considering the case of regularization of those working on casual/adhoc basis for a long period, the Court held that "it cannot be lost sight of that even if a person has served for long years that fact by itself can not furnish a valid reason for regularization of his service without anything more as in that event it will not meet the requirement of the action being in public interest. It cannot also be lost sight of that grant of regularization in effect results in relaxation of the conditions regulating the recruitment etc. prescribed under the Rules which cannot be set at naught for a regularization as if they never existed. The regularization, therefore, if at all has to be in accordance with the Rules and not de hors the Rules".;