SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Kshetresh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) SINCE the counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged, as requested by learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally under the Rules of the Court.

(3.) LEARNED standing counsel opposing the writ petition submits that the writ petitioner having been engaged only on daily wage basis, no right to claim for regularization de hors the Rules. He also submitted that recruitment to Class IV posts in the office of the respondents is governed by the Statutory Rules and the engagement of the petitioner being de hors the rules, he has no right to claim regularization. He further submitted that for considering certain category of employees for regularization "the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979" (hereinafter referred to as "1979 Rules") and "the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group D Posts, Rules, 2001" (hereinafter referred to as the "2001 Rules") have been published but the case of the petitioner is not covered by any of the said rules, inasmuch as, 1979 Rules are applicable to the persons who were appointed on ad hoc basis and since the petitioner was never engaged on ad hoc basis, therefore, the same do not apply to him. Similarly, 2001 Rules though applicable to the persons engaged on daily wage basis but it provides cut off date being 29th June, 1991 and the petitioner having been engaged on daily wage subsequent thereto, therefore, is also not entitled for regularization under the 2001 Rules.