ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) Petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging an order passed by Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ''the authority') dated 16.10.2018, whereby their claim for regularization has been rejected. This order has been passed pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 15985 of 2018, dated 27.07.2018, which is reproduced hereafter:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents Shri Mayank Singh holding brief of Shri B.B.Jauhari. Shri B.B.Jauhari has filed memo of appearance on behalf of Greater NOIDA, which is taken on record. Shri Mayank Singh has informed this Court that the petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition which was decided by a detailed order on 10.07.2013. He has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners however says that a fresh cause of action has arisen after the Government Order dated 24.02.2016 and the petitioners may be allowed to make a representation in accordance with the aforesaid Government Order before the authority concerned i.e. the Chief Executive Officer, Greater NOIDA (respondent no. 3), which may be directed to be decided in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of without entering into the controversy raised with a direction to the petitioners to make a representation to the respondent no. 3 within a period of two weeks from today. The respondent no. 3 shall consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order within a further period of two months."
(2.) Petitioners have asserted in para 3 that they are working against different posts like Technician, Telephone operator, Electrician etc. and that some of them have also been promoted to higher posts. In para 4 of the writ petition it is stated that petitioners are continuously working without any break, to the satisfaction of the officers concerned, against permanent posts and are qualified for appointment to the posts in question. In para 7 of the writ petition it is disclosed that petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 36607 of 2013, which was dismissed on 10.07.2013, but a Special Appeal preferred against it, is pending. The order dated 10.07.2013, dismissing Writ Petition No. 36607 of 2013, is reproduced hereinafter:- "The petitioner claims to be an association titled as Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Sangh, U.P. Greater Noida Audyogik Vikas Pradhikaran, has approached this Court with request to direct the respondents to consider the case of the members of the petitioner association for regularization on respective posts and further prayer has been made to extend all benefits to the members of the petitioner association as other regular employees are getting since the date of joining of their service. On the matter being taken up today, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Greater Noida Development Authority had made categorical statement to the effect that till today no policy for extending the benefit of regularization has been framed who are working in the establishment of the Authority. Once there is no policy decision to extend the benefit of regularization of service, the request made by the petitioner cannot be accepted as daily wagers even otherwise have no right to claim reglarization, unless and untill there is a scheme. The law on the said subject has been laid down by Apex Court in the Case of Secretary State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and others [2006 (4) SCC 1] that exercise of regularization shall not be taken as a matter of right. It has been further contended on behalf of the petitioner Association that Rajkiya Vahan Chalak Mahasangh representing the drivers working in the respondent authority preferred Writ Petition No. 27557 of 2005 before this Court and the same was disposed of with a direction to the Authority to consider the case of the members of the petitioner therein for regularization on the post of driver. Against the said order of this Court the respondent Authority approached the Apex Court by means of Special Leav Petition. Apex Court in the said matter directed the Authority to undertake the exercise of recruitment for the posts of Drivers strictly as per the procedure prescribed in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Service Regulations, 1993 and that till the said process is completed, the services of the members of respondent therein shall not be terminated. Even in the said order of Apex Court, claim of regularisation has not been accepted. In the facts of the present case when such is the accepted position that there is no policy formulated for extending the benefit of regularization, the request as has been made by the members of the petitioner association cannot be adhered to. Here in the present case, once no process whatsoever for recruitment had taken place and there is no policy for extending the benefit of regularization, therefore, aforementioned judgment of the Apex Court will not come to the rescue and respite of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed."
(3.) In para 9 of the writ petition it is contended that petitioners are working under the supervision and control of respondent authority as also its officers and wages are also being paid to them by the authority. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the writ petition are relevant and are extracted hereinafter:- "10. That it is pertinent to mention here that the appointment letter has not been issued to the petitioners by the respondent authority since they were working on different post under the supervision and control of respondent authorities and their works are in permanent nature thus they are entitled to be regularized/absorbed in the respondent department. 11. That it is stated that now the petitioners have come to know that the respondent authorities have issued some letter in respect of appointment of contractor through e-tendering and now respondents are interested to take work from the petitioner through contractor.";