- (1.) NARAYAN Shukla, J. Heard Mr. Y. S. Lohit learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 23-2-2005 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioners' representation for their regularization on Group 'd' post has been rejected and they have further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioners case for regularization on Group 'd' post and to pay them salary admissible to their counter-parts working on the regular establishment till such consideration for regularization is made. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners have been working on different posts of Group 'd' in the Directorate of Information, U. P. Lucknow for the last 7-10 years on daily wage basis. Additional Director of Information issue a letter dated 21-8-2000 seeking information about daily wage employees whose work and conduct was not satisfactory and who did not take interest in work. The petitioners having been found their work and conduct satisfactory, were allowed to continue in service and they are working and performing their duty with full devotion and utmost satisfaction of the authorities concerned, but they have not been appointed on regular basis although 27 posts were lying vacant. The petitioners were being discriminated in the matter of salary, hence they made the representation to Hon'ble the Chief Minister instructed the Director to take necessary action vide letter dated 15-12-2000 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. When no action was taken by the Director, the petitioners preferred another representation to the Chief Secretary to Government, who also directed the Director to take necessary steps. The Director marked it to the Deputy Director (Admn. ). Consequently Deputy Director circulated a latter dated 26-3-2003 to all the officers requiring them to make available the files pertaining to appointment of daily wagers, but of no avail. Being compelled by the circumstances the petitioners filed a writ petition No. 202 (S/s) of 2005 for their regularization and payment of salary paid to their counter-parts working on the regular establishment, stating inaction of the opposite parties in not taking any decision in the matter of their regularization. The said writ petition was finally disposed on 25-1-2005 merely issuing a direction to the Director to dispose of the representation of the petitioners within a period of six weeks by passing a speaking and reasoned order.
(3.) THE Director on receipt of the representation sought opinion from the Personal Department in the matter which in turn sought information from the Government regarding cut off date 29-6-1991 mentioned in the Regularisation Rules of 2001, which in turn replied that no proceeding is pending consideration for cut off date 29-6-1991. Consequently the Director rejected their representation merely by saying that since no proceeding regarding cut off date 29-6-1991 is pending, the persons mentioned in the enclosed list working on daily wages are not entitled for their regularization. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State which supports the impugned order only by saying that since all the petitioners are appointees after the cut off date i. e. 29-6-1991, they are not entitled for their regularisation.;