Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner is claiming regularisation on a Group ‘C’ post in Rural Engineering Department, Hardoi. He has instituted this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 22nd January, 2011 passed by the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Hardoi, the third respondent, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularisation.

2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.

3. The petitioner was initially engaged on daily wages basis on 01st February, 1978 in the Rural Engineering Department at Hardoi. His services were orally terminated in February, 2000. Challenging the said order, he preferred a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 3427 (S/S) of 2000 (Sri Surendra Pal Bhardwaz v. State of U.P. and others) and also sought a direction for his regularisation. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 10th July, 2000 by issuing a direction that if the petitioner is continuously working then in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ‘C’ Post (Outside purview of the Public Services Commission) Rules, 1998 (for short, the “Rules, 1998”) his case be considered for regularisation.

4. In compliance with the aforesaid order of this Court, on 18th August, 2000 the third respondent passed a detailed order permitting the petitioner to join his duties. It is stated that in compliance with the said order, the petitioner joined his duties and continued to work till his superannuation in 2010. However, no order for regularisation was passed. It is further stated that in the seniority list of Group ‘C’ Daily Wagers, which was prepared on 07th July, 2005, the petitioner is shown at Serial No. 32. A copy of the said seniority list is on the record as annexure-3 to the writ petition.

5. In the meantime, the State Government on 08th September, 2010 had sanctioned supernumerary posts for absorption/regularisation of daily wage workers, who are appointed before the cut off date viz. 29th June, 1991 as provided in the Rules, 1998. In spite of the said Government Order, the petitioner’s case was not considered and he retired on 31st December, 2010. Before his retirement, the petitioner preferred another writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 8811 (S/S) of 2010, for a direction upon the respondents for his regularisation before his retirement on 31st December, 2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 22nd December, 2010 directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim for regularisation prior to 31st December, 2010 i.e. his date of retirement. The order of this Court is on the record as annexure-7 to the writ petition. It is stated that the said order was not complied with, then the petitioner was compelled to file a contempt petition, Contempt Application No. 875 (C) of 2011. After filing the contempt petition, on 22nd January, 2011 the petitioner’s claim has been rejected by the impugned order.

6. The third respondent in the impugned order has stated that it was not possible to regularise the petitioner on the ground that before his retirement no post was available.

7. It is contended by the petitioner that the said stand is not correct. The petitioner has averred in paragraph-11 of the writ petition that several juniors to the petitioner have been regularised on supernumerary posts. It is also stated that the petitioner has been continuously working for more than 32 years and he was entitled for regularisation in terms of the Rules, 1998.

8. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter-affidavit the ground mentioned in the impugned order has been reiterated. A further stand has been taken that a Committee was constituted vide order dated 20th January, 2011 for disposal of the matter of petitioner’s regularisation. The said Committee scrutinized the record available in the file and relevant papers and in its recommendations dated 21st January, 20