The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Appointing Authority erred in law and acted against the Rules of 2001, and ignoring the services rendered by the petitioners on daily wages in the same department prior to the establishment of the Centre and adopted a wholly illegal approach, de horse the Rules in fixing their seniority on the basis of the number of days of work.

( 1 ) HEARD S/shri Narendra Mohan, V. K. Singh, N. A. Khan and Devi Prasad Mishra, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in the above writ petitions, and learned Standing Counsels for respondents.

( 2 ) BY means of these writ petitions, petitioners, working as Class-IV Employees as "mali" on daily wages have prayed for regularisation of their services with respondents and for payment of regular wages. During the pendency of these writ petitions, a process of regularisation was undertaken in which twelve Malis, including petitioners were recommended to be regularised by a Regularisation Committee, on 7. 1. 2003, under the U. P. Regularisation of Daily Wages appointment on Group d Posts Rules 2001. Petitioners have also challenged the validity of the process of regularisation and the method and manner in which their seniority was determined for the purposes of regularisation.

( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to these writ petitions arc that petitioners are working in the Horticulture department at Allahabad as Malis on daily wages. Some of the petitioners arc working since 1984-85. They were mainly engaged in various gardens run by the Horticulture Department at allahabad including Alfred Park. By Government Order dated 26th September 1987 "uddyan prayog Avam Prashikshan Kendra" were established under a scheme by State Government, at lucknow, AHahabad and Jhansi. These centres were established for disseminating and providing knowledge of latest methods and techniques in Horticulture to the farmers, with special emphasis to Mango, Guava and Lemon including its various processes, selection of species, plant protection, to increase the production and to train the officers and employees in this regard. AH the petitioners were taken on daily wages in the scheme at Allahabad as Class IV employees, with its office of Khusroobagh in the year 1987-88. Initially the aforesaid Government Order sanctioned 30 posts including the Chief Horticulture specialists, Cits specialist, Pathologists etc. , including three Class IV posts of Chaukudar and Peon. Financial grants were given for 34 posts of Malis. Initially 32 employees were taken from different places in the Horticulture Department on regular basis. At present, however, only 22 Malis are working and that there are 12 regular vacancies.

( 4 ) SRI Babai and five others including Amar Bahadur, Bhagi Rathi, Ram Vilas and Ram Lakhan saroj and Bhai Lal Saroj, filed Writ Petition No. 19852 of 1989, alleging that they were working as Class-IV employees on daily wages and that they were told by the respondents that their services were no longer required after 31. 10. 1989. In the counter-affidavit it was stated that petitioners are working as casual daily labours. Their employment was casual and the duty discharged by them was different, from regular malis. The Court relying upon the Supreme court decision in the State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130, found that since petitioners were working for a substantial period varying from five to twelve years, they were entitled to be regularised provided their service record are satisfactory. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of directing respondents to consider petitioner Nos, 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 for the purposes of regularisation and to pass reasoned order within a period of eight weeks. Writ petition No. 24918 of 1989, filed by Ram Naresh and two others namely Daya Bhan and Jag Lal; as well as Writ Petition No. 10498 of 1990, between Devi Deen Parjapati and one another namely Ram Raj Singh was also disposed of on 12. 12. 1995 with the same directions as in the case of Babai and others. One other Writ Petition No. 19862 of 1989 was filed in which final order was passed on 12. 11. 1995 with the same direction as above, to decide the matter of regularisation by reasoned within the date fixed. These orders passed as aforesaid by this Court were not complied with by the respondents on which Contempt Petition Nos. 946 of 1996 a