The interpretation and application of the U.P. Regularisation of the Adhoc Employees on Posts (Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 and the U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wage Appointments on Group C Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998, in the context of regularisation of daily wage registration clerks and their entitlement to continue on daily wages till regular selections.

( 1 ) THE question that stems for consideration in these petitions listed for admission under the heading "ig Registration Bunch, is as to whether the petitioners were entitled to be regularised in service as Registration Clerk qua the directions given by the Supreme Court in Khagesh kumar and Ors. v. Inspector General of Registration, U. P. and Ors. JT 1995 (7) SC 542 : (1996)1 UPLBEC 23 (SC ). In some of the writ petitions, a further question has been brought to bear that in any case the petitioners were entitled to continue on daily wages till regular selections were made in the light of the directions given by the Apex Court in I. G. Reg v. Avdhesh Kumar jt 1996 (5) SC 365 : (1996) 3 UPLBEC 1744 (SC ). Since the petitions are knit together by reason of common question of law being involved therein and also by reason of the facts being identical these petitions were grouped together and heard accordingly for a convenient disposal by a common judgment.

( 2 ) IT brooks no dispute that the petitioners were appointed registration clerk on daily wages on the basis of sanction given by the Governor each year subject to the postulates that the appointments would, in no case, exceed three years during the course of a financial year. Earlier when the matter came up before this Court at the instance of a large number of Daily rated registration clerks, seeking regularisatioin, the High Court held that Daly rated employees were not entitled to consideration for regularisation under the provisions of the U,p Regularisation of the Adhoc Employees on Posts (Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the "rules") as the Rules and amended from time to time. Disagreeing with that view taken by the High Court, the Apex Court held in Khagesh Kumar (supra), that in the fact-situation of the case, the Registration clerks appointed on or before 1. 10. 1986 on daily wage basis in view of the sanction given by the Governor for such posts, would be deemed to be ad hoc appointees within the meaning of the Rules aforesaid. The Apex court, however, held that while counting three years continuous service for the purposes of regularisation, artificial break in service for short period/periods created by the employer would be ignored but "if three is a gap of more than three months between the period of termination and re-appointment, that period may be excluded in the computation of three months period as held in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, JT 1989 (4) SC 541. In view of the said decision, it was categorically held by the Apex Court in Khagesh Kumar (supra), that "for computing three years period of corrtinauus service for the purpose of Rule 4 (1) (iii) of the Regularisation Rules, the period of break in service which was longer than three months has to be excluded and only the period during which the petitioners actually worked can be counted. " It was further held that in case any of the petitioners was employed as a registration clerk on Daily wage basis prior to October 1, 1986 and after excluding the periods of breaks in service which are longer than three months, he has put in three years service he would be entitled to seek regularisation under Rule 4 (1) of the Regularisation Rules provided he fulfills the requirements of clause (ii) of the said Rules. The Apex Court observed that for this purpose, the candidate may move the appropriate authority for such regularisation. The authority was directed to pass appropriate orders after checking on the correctness of the claim of such individual. It was pursuant to the said directions that representations were preferred by the petitioners seeking regularisation and which representations came to be rejected by orders impugned in these writ petitions. In I. G. Registration v. Avdhesh Kumar, JT 1995 (5) SC 365 : (1996) 3 UPLBEC 1744 (SC), the Apex Court extended the benefit of the directions given in Kh