Yashwant Varma,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K.R. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite party.
(2.) This petition has been preferred alleging non compliance with the directions issued by a Division Bench of the Court on 24 September 2015 in Special Appeal. The issue itself relates to the claim of the applicant for regularisation in the Forest Department and formed subject matter of Writ Petition No. 48322 of 2000. This petition was partly allowed by a learned Single Judge on 17 October 2005 with the following observations:- "22. For the aforesaid reasons all the writ petitions are partly allowed. It is held that the petitioners have not succeeded in establishing malafides in selections for the regularization and diversion of vacancies. The selection Committees were constituted in accordance with the Rules. The petitioners, however, are held entitled to be considered for regularization afresh after ignoring the artificial breaks in their services in accordance with the judgments of this Court in Jaglal and others vs. Director of Horticulture, U.P. Government, Lucknow and others and Visheshwar vs. Principal Secretary, Forest Anubhag-3 and others and further they are also held entitled for exemption from minimum educational qualifications and physical endurance test, for regularisation as Group 'D' and Group 'C' employees in the forest department. All the petitioners shall be considered for regularisation afresh by the selection committees.23. The State Government is directed to reconsider all the petitioners for regularisation ignoring the artificial breaks, and the minimum educational qualifications and the physical endurance prescribed by the service rules. The selection committees shall meet again and shall reconsider the candidature of all the petitioners for regularisation. Those petitioners who are found eligible shall be included in the merit list to be regularized on the vacancies or the vacancies which may arise in future in their respective divisions, and until then all the petitioners who are still working shall be allowed to continue on the daily wages, and shall be entitled for minimum pay scale which was so allowed by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Puti Lal, 2002 2 UPLBEC 1595. The directions shall be carried out in three months. The petitioners are also held entitled to the costs."
(3.) It is not disputed that the State carried the matter in a Special Appeal which was also partly allowed by a Division Bench by its judgment dated 24 September 2015. While partly allowing the appeal, the Division Bench held as under:- "Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the directions issued by the learned Judge on 17 October 2005 to the State Government, while partly allowing the writ petitions, to reconsider the cases of the writ petitioners for regularisation of their services by ignoring the minimum educational qualifications or the physical endurance requirement prescribed in the service rules with a further direction that until then all the petitioners who were still working should be allowed to continue on a daily wage basis and be paid the minimum of the pay-scale, cannot be sustained and are, accordingly, set aside. The State Government shall consider the cases of the daily wagers in the light of the observations made above and by ignoring the artificial breaks in their engagement as daily wagers.The Special Appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed. The writ petition shall also stand partly allowed to the extent indicated above.";