- (1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. By means of this Writ Petition, moved under Article 226 of the Consti tution of India, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs : "i) To issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the peti tioners for regularization and regulatized their services as has been done in the case of other adhoc Sachivs who are junior to the petitioners. ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus di recting the respondents to pay regular pay scale to the petition ers with effect from 01-11-1993 as in the case of other Coopera tive Sachivs, who have been as signed with the same work. iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus di recting the respondents to make payment of the salary of the pe titioners by District Cooperative Bank Pauri Garhwal as is being done in the case of regular em ployees and other Adhoc employ ees. iv) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus di recting the respondents to make payment of salary to the petition ers regularly. v) To issue any suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the cir cumstances of the case. vi) To award the cost of the writ pe tition to the petitioners. "
(2.) THE petitioners were appointed on the adhoc basis as Sachiv of differ ent Cooperative Societies in the District of Pauri Garhwal. THEy were being paid their salaries by the District Cooperative Bank, Pauri Garhwal. From the month of November, 1993 onwards the peti tioners were paid lumpsum amount of salary based on the principle of mini mum wages by the Cooperative Socie ties and the Cooperative Societies also directed by the District Management to pay salary to the Sachiv only out of the profit earned by the society. It was fur ther directed that no salary would be paid to petitioners from the capital fund of the society. THE petitioners were de nied the equal pay and equal work. THE said action of the respondents were ob jected by the petitioners and made a rep resentation to the respondents. THE pe titioners also requested to the respond ents to regularize their services as they had been working for the last several years in said institutions and they also claimed their regularization on the ba sis of Uttar Pradesh [sahkari Samiti Kendriya Sewaon Ke Padon Par Tadarth Niyuktiyon Ka Viniyamitikaran Niyamawali, 1985] (hereinafter referred as the Rules, 1985 ). When the services of the petitioners were not regularized and salary were not paid to them, a pe tition was filed before the Allahabad High Court bearing No. 33267 of 1997, Rajesh Bhandari and others Vs. Mem ber Secretary, District Administrative Committee and others in which the Court directed while disposing of the petition of the petitioner to consider the repre sentation of the petitioner in accordance with the law and pass a reasoned order within three months from the date of the order filed before the competent author ity. In spite of the service of the said order, the services of the petitioners were not regularized and the respondent did not pass any order with regard to the regularization and to pay the salary to the petitioner. It was further alleged that the respondents had regularized the serv ices of the other persons working in Tehri District Cooperative Society and they had been paid regular salary whereas the petitioners had not been considered by the respondents. When the petitioners services were not regularized, hence this petition. The respondents filed counter af fidavit and pleaded in the counter affi davit that the regularization of the peti tioners could not have been done on the basis of the Niyamawali, 1985. The pe titioners were appointed after 01-05-1983, as such, their services could not be regularized. It was further pleaded that the petitioners have no right to claim the parity with the other Districts. It was also pleaded in the affidavit that the petitioners had no right to be regu larized because the Government had not framed any Niyamawali after the year 1985, as such, the respondents were not competent to regularize the services of the petitioners. Ultimately, it was prayed that the petition may be dismissed. I have heard Mr. V. K. Bist, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Sushil Vashisth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V. B. S. Negi, Sr. Advocate for the re spondent No. 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petition ers contended that when the services of the petitioner were not regularized, they filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court bearing No. 33267 of 1997 and the respondents were directed to consider their case for the regularization. It was further contended that in the identical circumstances, in an another writ petition No. 28606 of 1996, Gopal Dutt Saklani and others Vs. Member Secretary-District Administrative Com mittee and others was filed in which it was also directed to dispose of the rep resentation of the petitioners of that writ petition for their regularization as well as for their salary. It was contended that the petitioners of that writ petition be longed to other district Tehri Garhwal and their services were regularized and they were paid the salary by the Princi pal Secretary of that Committee (District Administrative Committee) whereas in case of the petitioners belonging to the Tehri District were considered by the same Registrar and they were not regu larized till today. It was further con tended that the case of the petitioners were also recommended by the District Administrative Committee on the basis of the resolution to regularize the serv ices of the petitioners. The resolution has been annexed with the writ petition as annexure 9. It was further contended that inspite of the resolution of the Ad ministrative Committee, the services were not regularized by the respondents. It was further contended that the State Government had not framed any rules after 1985 though in cases of other em ployees, the rules were framed subse quently but the petitioners have been prejudiced by not framing the rules af ter 1985. LEARNED counsel for the re spondents refuted the contention. The first and foremost question to be dealt with is whether the petition ers have got a right to get the regulari zation. The petitioners' cases were rec ommended by the Administrative Com mittee but the competent authority has not regularized the services of the peti tioners It is admitted case of the peti tioners that they were appointed after 1st May, 1983. They were appointed during the period 1987 to 1991. Rule 4 sub-clause (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of ad noc Appointments (On posts Belonging to Co-operative So cieties Centralised Services), Rules 1985 provides as under :- Regularisation of ad hoc ap pointment- (1) Any employee who- (i) was directly appointed in a Cen tralized Services on any post on ad hoc basis on or before May 1, 1983 and is continuing in service, as such, on the date of com mencement of these rules; (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appoint ment at the time of such ad hoc appointment; and (iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years continuous service; shall be considered for regular ap pointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the ba sis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders.;