S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dated 29.04.2006 passed by D.M., Mahrajganj rejecting the representation of the petitioner in pursuance of order of this Court, which was passed in an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner (W.P. No.31666 of 2005, decided on 21.03.2006). Through the said judgment, High Court had directed the D.M. to decide the petitioner's representation. According to the petitioner, he was appointed for the first time on 02.11.1981 as peon in the Nazarat of Tehsil Maharajganj, District Gorakhpur. The initial appointment was for about two and a half months and some extensions were granted in the said appointment, one from 17.05.1983 to 24.06.1983 and the other from 01.08.1986 to 18.09.1986. A certificate to that effect issued by the Tehsildar has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, according to which petitioner worked as peon in Tehsil Maharajganj for the following periods: 1.From 02.11.1981 to 22.01.1982
(2.) FROM 17.05.1983 to 24.06.1983 From 01.08.1986 (or 01.05.1986) to 18.09.1986 (in the certificate 01.08.1986 is given while in Para-3 of the writ petition figure 01.08.1986 has been given) The further period of work of petitioner according to the allegations made in Paras-4 and 5 of the writ petition itself is as follows: From 01.04.1991 to 31.05.1991
(3.) FROM 01.06.1991 to 31.07.1991 From 01.04.1992 to 30.09.1992 3. Maharajganj became an independent District w.e.f. 02.10.1989. It has further been stated that on creation of the district, 25 substantive vacancies came into existence, however several including the petitioner, who were working on ad hoc basis, were not given substantive appointment, hence six of them including the petitioner filed W.P. No.44401 of 1992 in this Court. Writ petition was disposed of on 28.09.1993 with the direction to consider the representation. Petitioner had also contended that several persons appointed after him were given regular appointment and services of petitioner were not extended/regularised. It was also stated that services of several persons who were appointed for the first time in the year 1992 were regularised but petitioner having been appointed in 1981 was discriminated. Petitioner and others again filed W.P. No.23504 of 1996. In the said writ petition on 02.08.1996, an order was passed that respondents should permit the petitioners to continue in the post where they were working. (Petitioner was in fact not working since after 30.09.1992 as is evident from Paras-3 to 5 and 26 of the writ petition) In pursuance of interim order dated 02.08.1996, D.M. passed the order dated 01.06.1998 permitting the petitioner to work on fix salary of Rs.950/- per month subject to the decision of W.P. No.23504 of 1996. It is also stated in Para-33 that fresh appointments have been made on 08.07.2003. W.P. No.23504 of 1996 was finally decided on 05.07.2004 directing the D.M. to consider the case of the petitioner within three months and till then no interference should be made in the functioning of the petitioners and petitioners should continue to get minimum pay/salary as usual. Petitioners' representation was dismissed on 18.03.2005 holding that Rules did not permit regularisation and petitioners would continue to get fix salary of Rs.950/- per month. Thereafter, third writ petition was filed being W.P. No.31666 of 2005, which was again disposed of on 21.03.2006. Order of D.M. dated 18.03.2005 was set aside and he was directed to decide the case of the petitioners strictly in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group-D Posts Rules, 2001. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 29.04.2006, it was decided that the case of the petitioner was not covered by the said Rules as petitioner was not daily wager employee before 29.06.1991 and he was also not working in 2001 when the Rules were framed. Rule-4(1)(a) of the above Rules is quoted below: "4.Regularisation of daily wages appointments on Group ''D' Posts.- (1) Any person who-- (a) was directly appointed on daily wages asis on a Group ''D' post in the Government service before June 29, 1991 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules; and" 4. As indicated in the chart in the earlier part of this judgment, petitioner worked for broken periods of one or two months and they were also long gaps of one, two, three and four years, hence petitioner's case was not at all covered by the aforesaid Rules. The aforesaid Rules directed regularisation of those employees, who worked on daily wages without any break from 29.06.1991 to 2001 when aforesaid Rules were framed. Petitioner did not work after 30.09.1992. 5. The era of direction for regularisation (except in those cases which are covered by Regularisation Rules or where an employee has worked for continuous period of ten years without interim order of Court) is over by virtue of Supreme Court judgment reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 "Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi". Total period of work of petitioner comes to about 17 months (17 months 3 days). 6. There is absolutely no occasion to direct regularisation of petitioners' services, who was admittedly not in job since 30.09.1992 (Para-26 of the writ petition).;