The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the State to regularize the services of daily wage workers and the application of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the constitutional provisions under Article 162 and 309 of the Constitution of India in ensuring the rights of the petitioners.

1. By this common order, I propose to dispose of two Civil Writ Petition Nos. 16325 of 2012 and 24611 of 2013 as common question of law and facts is involved in both the petitions. The facts are being taken from CWP No. 16325 of 2012.

2. The prayer in Civil Writ Petition No. 16325 of 2012 is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 27.5.1993 and 7.3.1996/18.3.1996 in terms of the Government instructions (Annexures P-1 to P-3) issued from time to time.

3. Mr. Sandeep Thakan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in CWP No. 16325 of 2012 submits that the petitioners were appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidars in the year 1982 and 1992 and as per the 1996 policy, the Government of Haryana decided to regularize the work charged employees, who had completed five years or more years of continuous service as on 31.1.1996 and were in service on 31.1.1996 and even to regularize casual and daily rated employees, who have completed five or more years of service as on 31.1.1996. Despite the promulgation of the aforementioned instructions, services of the petitioners were not regularized, rather their services were terminated, which necessitated to raise the industrial disputes. The Labour Court answered the references in favour of the workmen and directed the Management- Forest Department to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service. Copies of the awards passed on 3.4.2006 have been annexed with the petition as Annexures P-4 and P-5.

4. Thereafter, the petitioners again requested the respondents for regularization of their services, but their claim has been rejected vide letter Annexure P-6 dated 20.4.2012 on the premise that the petitioners had not completed 240 days each year of three years before 30.9.2003 and, therefore, they were not entitled for regularization from 1.10.2003.

5. Mr. Sandeep Thakan, learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contention, relied upon the judgment dated 28.5.2014 rendered by the Single Bench of this Court in Khajjan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 10017 of 2011 to submit that in the aforementioned order, the learned Single Judge while discussing all the policies and as well as the judgment rendered in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in the said case. He further submitted that even Letters Patent Appeal No. 1903 of 2014 (State of Haryana and others v. Jiyaji Sharma) filed against the aforementioned judgment has been dismissed on 21.1.2015

6. Mr. Keshav Gupta, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the State, in support of his contention, brought to the notice of this Court para 53 of Uma Devi's case (supra) to contend that only under five exceptions, the persons are entitled to regularization and for claiming regularization, there has to be specific pleadings, much less, averments. However, in the present case, no such averments or pleadings have been made. He further submitted that from the date when the judgment of Uma Devi's case (supra), came, it has been clearly mentioned that there shall be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent those, who had not been appointed as per the constitutional scheme. He further submitted that the petitioners were not appointed on regular/sanctioned posts and, therefore, they were not entitled to regularization. He further submitted that the instructions of 1993 and 1996 issued under Articles 162 and 309 of the Constitution of India are not mandate of the Constitution/law and, therefore, they are not binding on the State, but owing to the pronouncement of the judgment in Umadevi's case (supra), the State is restrained to act upon such instructions.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in rebuttal, submitted that the State had come out w