- (1.)SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Heard Sri D. K. Tripathi, holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.)THE facts in brief are that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wage Class-IV employee in Forest Department in July 1984 and has been continuing. On the promulgation of Rules, "up. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'd' Posts Rules, 2001" (hereinafter referred to as 'rules 2001') his matter was considered for regularization by the competent authority but vide impugned order dated 10. 9. 2004, his claim for regularization has been rejected on the ground that in the year 1993-94, 98, 99, 2000 and 2001, he worked for certain period which did not amount to continuous working in service throughout though under Rules 2001 he was required to work continuously.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is totally illegal and has misapplied Rule 2001 inasmuch the only requirement to attract regularization under Rules 2001 are those conditions as provided under Rule 4 (1), but the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner have incorporated a condition which did not exist in the said Rules.

The respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein the facts as stated are not disputed, but it is said for the purpose of attracting regularization under Rules 2001, one must have worked continuously throughout and the only break permissible is holidays and not otherwise. In this view of the matter, it is said that the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected.

(3.)SINCE the facts are not in dispute and it is also not disputed that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in 1984, i. e. , before 29. 6. 1991 and was also working on the date of commencement of Rules 2001, /. e. on 21. 12. 2001, thus it is evident that he was entitled to be considered for regularization under the said Rules. The only question up for consideration is whether the said Rules require continuous service throughout, i. e. , from the date cf initial engagement till the commencement of the Rules. In my view, there is no such requirement under the Rules as is apparent from perusal thereof. Rule 4 (1) of Rules 2001 is reproduced as under: "4. Regularisation of daily wages appointments on Group 'd'posts.- (1) Any person who - (a) was directly appointed on daily wage basis 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 (b) possessed requisite qualification prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such appointment on daily wage basis under the relevant service rules, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available in Group 'd' post, on the date of commencement of these rules on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders. "
The only requirement under Rule 4 (1 ) (a) are that the incumbent was directly appointed on daily wage basis on a Group 'd' Post in a Government Service before 29. 6. 1991 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of the said Rules. The further requirement under Clause (b) of Rule 4 (1) is that he must have possessed requisite qualification required for regular appointment on that post at the time of such employment on daily wage basis.