Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—These connected petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgement. WRIT - A No. - 35425 of 1997 is the leading case.

2. Heard Sri B.N.Singh, learned counsel for all the petitioners and Sri Harish Chandra Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioners herein were engaged as part-time tube-well operators on different dates between 1981 to 1983 in the Irrigation department of the State.

4. Other similarly appointed part-time tube-well operators, raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court claiming parity of pay with regularly appointed tube-well operators on the ground that their duties, qualifications and working hours etc. were similar to each other. The Labour Court recorded a finding in their favour and allowed the claim. On a challenge being made by the State Government before the High Court, the findings recorded by the Labour Court were affirmed. Matter went up to the Supreme Court and there also, the findings recorded by the Labour Court as well as the High Court, were affirmed. Consequently, part-time tube-well operators were given pay parity.

5. In one of the special appeals arising out of such writ petitions, the benefit of pay parity was ordered to be given w.e.f. date of judgement i.e. in the case of Suresh Chandra Tewari, decided on 18.5.1994, which was the leading case, not from the date of initial appointment. The claim for pay parity from the date of initial appointment was declined by this Court vide judgement dated 26.4.2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 155 (S/S) of 2001, Rajendra Prasad Misra v. State of U.P. and others and said benefit was given prospectively.

6. The petitioners herein also filed a writ petition bearing No. 17350 of 1992 claiming the same benefit of pay parity as was claimed in the case of Suresh Chandra Tewari (supra). Their writ petition was also allowed in the same terms.

7. Thereafter, the petitioners herein filed Writ Petition No. 16249 of 1996 claiming regularization of their services and grant of service benefits w.e.f. the date of their initial appointments, which was disposed of on 19.7.1996 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) with a direction to the concerned respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner in accordance with law by a reasoned order.

8. Thereafter, in pursuance of certain orders of this Court, the State Government framed regularisation rules in the year 1996 for regularization of services of such part-time tube-well operators and circulated the same vide Government Order dated 17.12.1996. One of the conditions mentioned in the said rule, was that the part-time tube-well operator should have been appointed prior to 1.10.86 and should have been working on the date of promulgation of the said rules. The cut of date mentioned above was amended in the year 2008 and the same was made 13.6.1998.

9. The services of the petitioners herein were regularised vide order dated 10.3.1997 in terms of the G.O. Dated 17.12.1996, w.e.f. 17.12.1996. Subsequently, said order was superseded by the impugned order dated 9.5.1997 to the extent that such regularisation of the petitioners herein was made effective w.e.f. 1.3.1997 and not from 17.12.1996. It is under these circumstances that this writ petition was filed by the petitioners challenging aforesaid order dated 9.5.1997.

10. During pendency of this writ petition, an amendment was made on 2.9.2011 challenging the order dated 10.3.1997 to the extent it granted regularisation of services w.e.f. 17.12.1996 and to the extent the order dated 9.5.1997 granted it w.e.f. 1.3.1997. Another amendment application was filed for adding certain grounds and reliefs for challenging the vires of Rules 4, 5 & 6 of the Regularisation Rules 1996. The said amendment application was allowed in the year 2013 and thereby, the vires of the rules is also under challenge.

11. Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the rul