Working under an interim order of the Court cannot be used to claim benefits under any law.

( 1 ) PETITIONER, Sunil Kumar Sharma, claims regularisation on the basis of his work for the following periods (as per his date and event chart along with the writ petition) admittedly, having been engaged as daily, wager in the department of Registration Government of U. P. : petitioner was appointed for the period from 11. 4. 1984 to 31. 12. 1984 (8-1/2 months)Gap 3 weekspetitioner was appointed for the period from23. 1,1985 to 31. 1. 1985 [10 days)Gap 9-1/2 monthspetitioner was appointed for the period from16. 4. 1985 to 30. 6. 1985 (2-1/2 months)Gap 12 months petitioner was appointed for the period from8. 2. 1986 to 3. 5. 1986 (2 months 27 days)The aforesaid statistics shows that petitioner had worked, in total for 15 months (ignoring short breaks, i. e. gap of less than 3 months ).

( 2 ) THE learned standing counsel, however, giving his own calculation about the work of the petitioner and according to it, the petitioner had worked for 511 days (i. e. less than two years ). Petitioner does not dispute that he had not worked continuously for three years on or before october, 1986 for being eligible to be regularised under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules 1979, (called the Rules, 1979 ).

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that petitioner had not pleaded three years continuous service as required under relevant ad hoc rules prior to 1986.

( 4 ) THE aforesaid rules were amended vide the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad Hoc appointments (on the Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) (Second amendment) Rules, 1989, (called the Rules, 1989 ). Rule 2 of Second Amendment Rules, 1989, reads :

"2. Insertion of new Rule 10.--After Rule 9 of Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad Hoc appointments (on the Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, the following rule shall be inserted, namely : "10. Extension of the Rules.--The provisions of these rules shall apply, mutatis mutandis, also to any person directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before October 1, 1986 and continuing in service as such, on the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad Hoc appointments (on the Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) (Second amendment) Rules, 1989. "

( 5 ) THERE is no dispute that petitioner was not allowed to continue as dally wager after June 30, 1985. It is also admitted to the petitioner that thereafter he had filed writ petition wherein he obtained an interim order dated 27. 8. 1991, Annexure-5 to the writ petition which was subsequently confirmed vide order dated September 14. 1993, Annexure-6 to the writ petition.

( 6 ) FOR convenience the aforesaid two orders are reproduced :

(i) "issue notice. Until further orders the selection pursuant to the advertisement will continue but so long as the post if any held by the petitioner is decided to be manned by daily wages earner by the respondents the petitioner will be permitted to continue if his work continues to be satisfactory and shall be paid his salary admissible to him regularly.

(ii) "heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. The interim order dated 27. 8. 1991, is hereby confirmed. It is further directed that the petitioner will be paid the same salary which is being paid to the regular employees on the post on which he is working on the basis of equal for equal work. "

( 7 ) IT will be useful to note here that interim order dated 27. 8. 1991, itself supports the above since it use the expression until further orders. Order dated September 14, 1993 reads : ". . . . . . . . . . the interim order dated 27. 8. 1991, is hereby confirmed. . . . . . ". This signifies that petitioners working under aforesaid interim order was not unqualified but subject to further orders of this Court.

( 8 ) PETITIONERs Writ Petition No. 23740 of 1991 and other conne