Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J.—Except the Special Appeal No. 304 of 2012, all the special appeals have been filed by the State-appellant against the various orders passed by the learned Single Judge. But the facts, circumstances and prayers are identical in all the special appeals, hence, all the special appeals are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of breviate.

2. The brief facts of the cases are that all the private opposite parties-petitioners are working as daily wagers in the Estate Department and Trade Tax Department of the State-appellant. They filed various writ petitions, where the learned Single Judge has granted the minimum of the pay-scale to them. Further, dearness allowance was also awarded on the minimum of the pay-scale. Being aggrieved the State-appellant has filed the present special appeals. In Special Appeal No. 304 of 2012, appellant could not get the said order from the learned Single Judge. So, he is also before this Court.

3. With this background, Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned Standing Counsel submits that on 11.12.2012, this Hon’ble Court in Special Appeal No. 304 of 2012, has passed the following order. The said order is reproduced as under :

“As the appellants have been admittedly granted minimum pay-scale under a final order dated 2.2.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 1534 (S/S) of 2002, which was not called in question in higher forum and has thus attained finality, prima facie it appears that the appellants would also be entitled to get other allowances including the dearness allowance as admissible to other similarly situated candidates in other services. Dearness allowance is not relatable to the employee but to the scale he is drawing.”

4. Further, for the purpose of facts, learned Standing Counsel reads out the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1500 (S/S) of 2009 dated 3.5.2011. The same on reproduction reads as under :

“Heard Mrs. Bulbul Godiyal, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel.

The writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the opposite parties to include dearness allowance in the minimum pay-scale paid to the petitioners.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed on daily wages during the period 1994 to 2000 and since then they have been continuing.

The petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 1534 (SS) of 2002 for regularisation of their services wherein the Court vide order dated 2.2.2006 had directed the opposite parties to pay minimum of the pay-scale to the petitioners considering the fact that the petitioners have worked for more than ten and half years. On the basis of the said order the petitioners are getting the minimum of the regular pay-scale i.e. Rs. 2550/- per month.

It is submitted that under similar facts and circumstances several persons, in whose favour the Court had issued directions for payment of minimum pay-scale, have been given dearness allowance and as such the petitioners have been put to hostile discrimination.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that the petitioners have no right to get the dearness allowance. They are getting the minimum of the regular pay-scale in compliance of the Court’s order.

It is also submitted that there is no rule, regulation, or the Government Order for payment of regular pay-scale to the daily wages employees. The petitioners are not covered under the ambit of U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ‘D’ Post Rules, 2001. The writ petition is therefore misconceived.

I have considered the submissions made by the parties counsel.

It is admitted fact that the petitioners have been engaged on daily wages during the period 1994 to 2000 and they are not covered under Rules of 2001, as such, they have no right to be considered for regularisation.

So far as the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that they shall be given dearness allowance as they are getting the minimu