Hon’ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.—This intra Court appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 8.5.2014 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36398 of 2007 (Ram Nath Singh and another v. State of U.P. and others) whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents and have perused the records.

3. The appellants are retired employees of Irrigation Department. The appellant No. 1 was retired in the year 2007 and appellant No. 2 was retired on 31.1.2009. Both of them have alleged that they have been denied the pensionary benefits as payable to a regular employee because their services were not regularised within time. The petitioners/appellants are claiming their regularisation since after expiry of 3 years from their initial appointments. The petitioners/appellants have further alleged that some employees of the department were benefited whereas they have been discriminated without any reason. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that a letter was issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, U.P. to the effect that ‘Work Charged” employees who have completed their continuous service as on 30.9.1998 shall be regularised as directed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh; (1992) 4 SCC 118 and Raj Narain Prasad v. State of U.P., decided on 18.1.1996 reported in (1998) 8 SCC 473, nothing has been done by the respondents till date.

4. Aggrieved by the inaction of their employers, the appellants moved this Court by means of a writ petition praying for the following reliefs :

“(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners to their respective post in pursuance of the various Government Orders and Judgments of the Apex Court of India decided on 18.1.1996 (Raj Narain Prasad and others v. State of U.P. and others).

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioners as a regular employee and pay the salary to the petitioners w.e.f. immediately after three years of their initial appointment in the department till date.

(iii) issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

(iv) to award the cost in favour of the petitioners.”

5. The learned writ Court denied to grant any relief to the appellants and dismissed their writ petition by the following order :

“Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the case has informed that the petitioners have attained the age of superannuation. Now looking to the relief sought in the writ petition, it is undisputed that at the time when the petitioners attained the age of superannuation both of them were regularised in service and stood confirmed in service as per the stand taken in the counter-affidavit. Therefore, relief No. (i) set out in the writ petition was granted during pendency of the writ petition.

The second relief sought in the writ petition is to the effect that the petitioners may be treated as regular employees w.e.f. immediately after three years of their initial appointment in the department. In this regard attention of this Court was drawn to Annexure 1, wherein, the names of the petitioners appear at the bottom i.e above last but one person namely Bishan Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show as to when Shri Bishan Singh was regularised in service so that a claim of parity could be considered in favour of the petitioner. The premise for such a claim has not been set out in the writ petition on the basis of any factual averments. The relief prayed for cannot be granted on the basis of random references of junior persons named in the writ petition who may or may not be junior to the petitioner.

The relief sought in the writ pet