- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
(2.) According to the petitioners' Counsel, petitioner no.1 and 2 being skilled labour were engaged as daily wagers on Group C post whereas petitioner no.3 was given appointment on group 'D' post on 1.1.1997. As certain persons were regularized in service, petitioners also claimed regularization and when no heed was paid, they filed writ petition no. 4319 (SS) of 2000; Ram Pal and seven others vs. State of U.P. which was disposed of by this Court on 26.4.2000 with the directions that benefit of the judgment and order dated 26.4.2000 passed in the case of one Jitendra kumar shall also be extended to the petitioners. Thereafter, the opposite parties again regularized service of certain persons on pick and choose basis but rejected the claim of petitioners on flimsy grounds which was not only discriminatory but contumacious in nature as it was against the directions and spirit of the order of this Court.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are still discharging their duties from the date of engagements on their respective posts and as such they are entitled for regularization in view of the Regularization Rules and recent Government Order dated 24th February, 2016. Therefore, denial of regularization to the petitioner is wholly unjustified and in breach of the provisions of the aforesaid Rules.;