Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to regularise their services under the U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wagers Appointment on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 and to grant all consequential benefits as admissible under law. The petitioners alleged that they have been engaged since 1985-86 as daily wage employees and are working as Malis [Gardeners] in Rajkiya Udyan [Company, Bagh], Government Garden, Allahabad and are currently deployed to work in the lawns of i the High Court. The petitioners have submitted that they have been appointed against the substantive- posts, but they are not being regularised for the reasons best known to the respondents. The petitioners further submitted that they have the requisite qualifications for being regularised on the post of Maalies. and that in any case, they have gained the requisite experience and expertise of the work of a Mali on account of having worked continuously for more than 10 years. The petitioners have further alleged that the services of the similarly situated persons working on daily, wages as Maalies with the same respondents, have been reguirised. The petitioners contended that similarly situated persons working as Maalies on daily wage basis approached this Court and filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30457 of 1997 in which this Court-by an order dated 15.9.97 directed the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners on the ground that they had been working for the last 14 years. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44466 of 1997, this Court by an order dated 7.1.1998 directed the respondents 10 consider the case of the petitioners working as Maalies and pass appropriate orders for the regularisation of their services. In Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 13994 of 1991, this Court by an order dated 14.9.1993 directed the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioners, as was being paid to a regular employee. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27020 of 1990, this Court by an order dated 28.3.97 directed the respondents to regularise the services of the daily wagers working as Maalies in the Rajkiya Udyan [Company Bagh], Against the aforesaid order dated 28.3.1997, the State Government preferred a Special Appeal, which was dismissed by judgment dated 12.4.2001. The State Government thereafter, filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was als6 rejected by judgment dated 23.9.2002.
(2.) The petitioner submitted, that in view of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court, the services of those daily wages, who had approached this Court, were regularised by the respondents. The petitioners also filed a supplementary affidavit stating therein that this Court by a judgment dated 4.8.2004 passed in Civil Misc, Writ Petition No. 27411 of 1999, directed the respondents to regularise the services of the daily wagers, who were employed as Maalies in the Rajkiya Udyan [Company Bagh] at Allahabad, on the ground that they had been working since long for more than 20 years. The petitioners alleged that some of the petitioners in that writ petition were junior to the petitioners and in this [regard also filed a seniority list showing that the petitioners were senior to: some of the daily wagers, who were petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27411 of 1991. The petitioners submitted, that pursuant to the aforesaid orders, the respondents issued an order dated 23.11.2003 granting minimum pay scale to the daily wagers, who had applied, for regularisation of their services. The petitioners further submitted that similarly situated persons filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6922 of 2003 in which they prayed that their services as Maalies be regularised and in that writ petition the Additional Advocate General appeared and made a statement to the effect that the respondents will not ready to regularise the services of 12 petitioners. In view of the statement made by the Additional Advocate General, the said writ petition! was disposed of by a judgment dated 31.3.2003 directing the respondents to regularise the services of those persons. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the aforesaid directions, the services of the aforesaid 12 petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition were regularised.
(3.) The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the petitioners were not appointed on any sanctioned post and that: they were appointed as part time Mazdoors on account of the exigencies of work and that they were appointed on daily wage basis and were only engaged to do the work of weeding, cleaning and hoeing. The respondents submitted that the petitioners were never appointed on the post of Maalies nor have submitted any certificate showing that they have the experience of working as a Mali The respondents further submitted that pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, the services of the similarly situated persons were regularised, but after the promulgation of the U.P.Regularisation of Daily Wagers Appointment on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001, various persons have been regularised, but the services of the petitioners were not regularised, as they had made an agitation and sat on a DHARNA and, therefore, their case could not considered The respondents further alleged that no past of Mali exist at the moment.;