S.R.Singh, J. - (1.) The question that stems for consideration in these petitions listed for admission under the heading "IG Registration Bunch, is as to whether the petitioners were entitled to be regularised in service as Registration Clerk qua the directions given by the Supreme Court in Khagesh Kumar and Ors. v. Inspector General of Registration, U.P. and Ors. JT 1995 (7) SC 542 : (1996) 1 UPLBEC 23 (SC). In some of the writ petitions, a further question has been brought to bear that in any case the petitioners were entitled to continue on daily wages till regular selections were made in the light of the directions given by the Apex Court in I.G. Reg v. Avdhesh Kumar JT 1996 (5) SC 365 : (1996) 3 UPLBEC 1744 (SC). Since the petitions are knit together by reason of common question of law being involved therein and also by reason of the facts being identical these petitions were grouped together and heard accordingly for a convenient disposal by a common judgment.
(2.) It brooks no dispute that the petitioners were appointed registration clerk on daily wages on the basis of sanction given by the Governor each year subject to the postulates that the appointments would, in no case, exceed three years during the course of a financial year. Earlier when the matter came up before this Court at the instance of a large number of Daily rated Registration clerks, seeking regularisatioin, the High Court held that Daly rated employees were not entitled to consideration for regularisation under the provisions of the U,P Regularisation of the Adhoc Employees on Posts (Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") as the Rules and amended from time to time. Disagreeing with that view taken by the High Court, the Apex Court held in Khagesh Kumar (supra), that in the fact-situation of the case, the Registration clerks appointed on or before 1.10.1986 on daily wage basis in view of the sanction given by the Governor for such posts, would be deemed to be ad hoc appointees within the meaning of the Rules aforesaid. The Apex Court, however, held that while counting three years continuous service for the purposes of regularisation, artificial break in service for short period/periods created by the employer would be ignored but "if three is a gap of more than three months between the period of termination and re-appointment, that period may be excluded in the computation of three months 'period as held in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, JT 1989 (4) SC 541. In view of the said decision, it was categorically held by the Apex Court in Khagesh Kumar (supra), that "for computing three years period of corrtinauus service for the purpose of Rule 4 (1) (iii) of the Regularisation Rules, the period of break in service which was longer than three months has to be excluded and only the period during which the petitioners actually worked can be counted." It was further held that in case any of the petitioners was employed as a registration clerk on Daily wage basis prior to October 1, 1986 and after excluding the periods of breaks in service which are longer than three months, he has put in three years service he would be entitled to seek regularisation under Rule 4 (1) of the Regularisation Rules provided he fulfills the requirements of clause (ii) of the said Rules. The Apex Court observed that for this purpose, the candidate may move the appropriate authority for such regularisation. The authority was directed to pass appropriate orders after checking on the correctness of the claim of such individual. It was pursuant to the said directions that representations were preferred by the petitioners seeking regularisation and which representations came to be rejected by orders impugned in these writ petitions. In I.G. Registration v. Avdhesh Kumar, JT 1995 (5) SC 365 : (1996) 3 UPLBEC 1744 (SC), the Apex Court extended the benefit of the directions given in Khageh Kumar {supra), even to those daily rated registration clerks who were appointed subsequent to 1.10.1986 and directed that such appointees would continue till regular selections were made in the light of the directions given in Khagesh Kumar's case. Subsequently however, it was clarified by the Supreme Court that directions to continue till regular selection could be availed of only by those who were continuing on the date of judgment in Avdhesh Kumar's case (supra), i.e. on 12.6.1996.
(3.) On the findings of fact recorded by the I.G. Registration in each case, it is evident that the petitioners failed to make out a case for regularisation within the meaning of Rule 4 (1) (iii) of the Rules in that they could not complete three years period of continuo service. To exemplify, in Writ Petition No. 4894 of 1998, Bhupendra Singh Bhadouri and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., the representation preferred by the petitioners seeking regularisation in terms of the directions contained in Khgesh Kumar (supra), came to be rejected by the Inspector General of Registration Uttar Pradesh vide impugned order dated 31.12.1997.The finding of the fact recorded in the impugned order is that Bhupendra Singh Bhadaura, petitioner No. 1 worked on Daily wage basis for 48 days in the year 1.985, 48 days in 1986, 55 days in 1987, 33 days in 1988, and 44 days in 1990-91. Similarly the 2nd Petitioner Mayashanker Vishwakarama worked for 44 days in 1986, 58 days in 1987, 20 days and 41 days in 1990-91. In addition to the service so rendered on Daily wage basis, petitioner-Bhupendra Singh Bhadauria worked from May,. 1991 to 16.4.1994 and Maya Shanker Vishwakarma from May, 1992 to 6.1.1994 on the dint of the interim orders passed by this Court. Similar findings have been recorded in other cases as well.;