RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Avinash Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishal Verma, learned State counsel.
(2.) The order under challenge is order dated 11.9.2018 passed by the opposite party no. 2 whereby the representation of the petitioner which was preferred in compliance of order dated 10.11.2017 passed in Service Single No. 3385/2014 has been rejected without considering the factual and legal matrix of the issue. The prayers of the writ petition are as under : "I. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certioriari quashing the impugned order dated 11.09.2018 so far as it's relates to the petitioners, with all consequential benefits, as is contained in Annexure No. 1. II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the opposite parties to allow the petitioners to all services benefits of regular Upper Divisional Assistant / Review Officer since 04.02.2002. III. Issue any other writ order or direction in the favour of petition which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. IV. Petition allowed with cost."
(3.) The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner no. 1 was initially appointed on the post of Typist on regular basis on 20.9.1982, petitioner no. 2 on 4.10.1982, petitioner no. 3 on 20.9.1982 and petitioner no. 4 on 4.10.1982. Thereafter as per Government Order dated 19.11.1992 and 20.3.1993 since the 29 posts of Typists were merged into the posts of Lower Divisional Assistant, therefore, the petitioners discharged the functions of Lower Divisional Assistant w.e.f. 23.7.1983, 1.11.1985, 1.8.1983 and 1.11.1985. However, vide para 9 of the counter affidavit the State-respondents have clarified the position by admitting that the petitioners were treated as L.D.A. but since the said increase was temporary in nature, therefore, the petitioners were temporary L.D.A. Undisputedly the services of temporary employees are made confirmed as there is no legal provision to regularize the services of temporary employees. Thereafter, the petitioners no. 1 to 4 were promoted on the post of Reference Clerk w.e.f. 20.8.1988, 1.6.1990, 20.8.1988, 20.4.1990 respectively. Later on the post of Reference Clerk is merged into the post of Upar Divisional Clerk, therefore, the petitioners were treated as U.D.A. w.e.f. 1.6.1990, 27.3.1991, 27.3.1991 and 27.3.1991 respectively. By means of an order bearing no. 324/1-6G/2002 dated 4.2.2002 which is Annexure no. 9 to the writ petition, the petitioners were regularized on the post of Reference Clerk. The relevant records reveal that vide order dated 4.2.2002 (Annexure no. 9) the services of the petitioners on the post of Reference Clerk have been regularised under Regularisation Rules, 2001 and vide subsequent order dated 20.2.2002 (Annexure no. 11) the services of the petitioners on the same post i.e. Reference Clerk have been confirmed under Rule 5(4) of Confirmation of the Employee of State of U.P. Rules, 1991.;