Rajan Roy, J. - (1.) Heard. Considering the facts and issues involved, as there is not much of a factual dispute there is no need to call for counter affidavit.
(2.) Heard Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sanjay Tripathi, learned counsel for Nagar Palika Parishad, and Sri B.L. Verma for the State who has produced the copy of the G.O. dated 11.5.2009 which is referred in the impugned order.
(3.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 4280 (S/S) of 1996 claiming regularization of their services which was allowed on 23.12.2005. The said judgment was not complied with on the ground that vacancies were not available. Subsequently, on 18.5.2006 the services of the petitioners were terminated by Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Sultanpur. The petitioners challenged the order of their termination from services by means of Writ Petition No. 4929 (SS) of 2006 wherein, on 26.5.2006 the following order was passed: "Notice on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 and 2 has been accepted by the learned Standing Counsel, while notice on behalf of opposite parties no. 3 to 5 has been accepted by Sri A.K Bajpai, who pray for and are granted six weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks thereafter is allowed to the counsel for the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit. List in the month of August,2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are working as daily wagers since 1989 and 1990 and thereafter they have been paid minimum wages also in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court. This Court passed a final judgment on 23.12.2005, wherein it was provided that the opposite parties will consider the case for regularization of the petitioners on Group-D post against the sanctioned post. Petitioners' counsel draws the attention of the Court towards Annexure No. 14 and submits that the petitioners' regularisation has been refused and after refusal of the regularization their services have also been dispensed with. The submission is that in pursuance to the judgment and order dated 23.12.2005 the opposite parties were required to consider the regularization of the petitioners. The regularization is under process, is the submission of Sri A.K Bajpai, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 3 to 5. He further submits that the matter has been referred to the State Government and the State Government has not taken any decision. He also submits that Annexure No. 14 is a mere correspondence between the Executive Officer and the Water Works Engineer of the Nagar Palika Parishad. The submission is that the regularization has not been finalised up till now. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the only question which remains for consideration, is with regard to sanction of post and financial approval by the State Government, but so far as the regularization is concerned, that has to be considered by the Nagar Palika Parishad. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the opposite parties it is clear that regularization has not been finalised up till now and the matter has been referred to the State Government for sanction of post and according financial approval. The opposite parties have acted in haste and thereby dispensed with the services of the petitioners before any decision could be taken in accordance with law in pursuance to the judgment of this Court dated 23.12.2005. The said judgment has not been challenged by the Nagar Palika Parishad in Special Appeal as well. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, Sri A.K Bajpai, has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in (2006) 4 SCC Page 1, Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others and (2006) 4 SCC Page 132, Avas Vikas Sansthan and another v. Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers Assn. and others. The above cases do lay down a law that daily wagers have got no right for regularisation. The case of Avas Vikas Sansthan (supra) pertains to abolition of post, whereas in the case of Uma Devi and (3) others (supra) the Constitution Bench has taken a different view for the persons who are working more than 10 years. In the present case, the petitioners were appointed in 1989 and 1990 and since they are continuously working. Their regularisation process is under way and the judgment of this Court dated 23.12.2005 having not been challenged has become final. The opposite parties should have waited up to the period they were considering regularisation, but before finalisation of the regularisation process, terminating the services of the petitioners is wholly illegal. The petitioners' would be allowed to continue as earlier up to the time their regularisation is considered by the opposite parties. The State Government will take a decision with regard to sanction of the post within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it and thereafter the Nagar Palika Parishad will act in accordance with the judgment rendered by this Court dated 23.12.2005. ";