The main legal point established in the judgment is that daily waged employees are entitled to be considered for regularisation, ignoring artificial breaks in service and minimum educational qualifications and physical endurance prescribed by the service rules.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri M. C. Chaturvedi, additional Standing Counsel and Sri Rajni Kant Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel appear for state respondents.

( 2 ) THIS bunch of writ petitions seeking regularisation of daily waged ; Group c and Group d employees of the forest department in the State of U. P. was last heard on 29. 9. 2005.

( 3 ) THE petitioners in these writ petitions are daily rated employees serving in Bundelkhand, allahabad, Gorakhpur, Bareilly and Agra Forests Circles including its 20 Forest divisions working since last more than fifteen to twenty years. In the first round of litigation a Division bench of this Court in State of U. P. v. Puti Lal (1998) 1 UPLBEC 313, allowed the Special appeals against the order of learned Single Judge directing regularisation of daily waged employees. The Division Bench directed the Stale of U. P. to appoint a Committee consisting of secretaries of Finance and Forest Department, and Legal Remembrancer, or their nominees to consider the question of framing a Scheme for regularisation/absorption of the petitioners and other similarly placed employees working in the forest department, and the schemes undertaken by the department. The State Government filed Civil Appeal No. 3634 of 1998 which was decided by Supreme Court on 21. 2. 2002, in State of U. P. and Ors. v. Puti Lal reported in (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595. The short judgement of the Supreme Court relevant for the purpose of deciding this second round of litigation is reproduced as below; 1. I. A. for discharged of Advocate is allowed. 2. These appeals and the Special Leave Petitions are directed against one and the same judgement of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court. The High Court disposed of a batch of appeals by a common judgement. The respondents were daily rated wage earners in the forest Department having already served the Department for several years. They approached the High Court for regular is at ion of their services. The Division Bench of the High Court by judgement dated 10th December, 1997 called upon the Government to frame a scheme as to how the services of these daily rated workers could be regularised. A committee was directed to be constituted consisting of Secretary (Finance), Secretary (Forest) and the Legal Rememberancers or their nominees, which Committee was called upon to frame the scheme for regularisation of the daily rated employees working in the Forest Department: The High Court also came to hold that these daily rated workers should be paid at the minimum of the pay scale that is available for a regular worker in the corresponding post in the Government. This Court, after issuing notice by order dated 13th of May 1998, directed maintenance of status quo so far as the payments are concerned. Subsequently, on hearing parties after notice, by order dated 3rd of august, 1998 leave was granted and the operation of the impugned judgement was stayed during the pendency of the appeal. 3. On behalf, of the employees an LA, had been filed claiming that they should at least be allowed their regular wages during the pendency of the appeals, but by order dated 27th september, 1990 that prayer was rejected and it was held that the persons working will be paid only the amount payable to a daily wager. When these mutters had been posted for hearing before the Court on Ist May 2001, after hearing the parties for a considerable length of time, the court felt that the impugned direction of the High Court for providing a scheme for regularisation of all the daily wage workers/muster roll employees under the Forest Department who have rendered 10 years of service or more, should be regularised by making appropriate scheme. The Court directed that the scheme should be framed within three months from the date of the order. As the State of U. P. was bifurcated to two States and State of Uttaranchal had come into existence, by a subsequent order