Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Rohit Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.P. Choudhary, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Harshit Pathak holding brief of Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

2. Petitioners have filed this writ petition for the following relief:

I. Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.4.2016 passed by the M.D. (Managing Director U.P. Bhumi Sudhar Nigam).

II. Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners on the posts held by them.

SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Government Order dated 13.8.2015 and Government Order dated 24.2.2016 for regularisation of work charge/contractual employee, the petitioners are entitled for regularisation on the post they are working but the impugned order dated 12.4.2016 has been passed in contravention of the aforesaid Government Orders. He submits that in case the respondent No. 4 was finding difficulty due to shortage of funds to meet the expences of salary on account of regularisation of the petitioners then in that situation the respondent No. 4 should have asked for funds from the State Government.

4. He submits that on the ground of non availability of funds to meet the extra burden on account of regularisation, the claim of petitioners under the aforesaid two Government Orders for regularisation cannot be rejected and consequently the impugned order is wholly arbitrary and illegal and therefore deserves to be quashed.

5. Learned standing counsel and Sri Harshit Pathak jointly submit that the aforesaid two Government Orders clearly provides for regularisation of daily wagers or work charge and contractual employee continuously working prior to the cut of date, subject to the three conditions provided in the aforesaid two Government Orders. Condition No. 1 clearly stipulates that a Nigam may regularise the services of the duly appointed contractual employee only in the situation that it shall meet the extra financial burden from its own resources and there shall be no need to demand any financial grant from the State Government. Condition No. 2 provides that in case of local bodies, Jal Sansthan, Jila Panchyat and such autonomous institutions which are being run by hundred percent or partial State Financial grant, then regularisation may be done only in the circumstances that to meet the extra financial burden, the financial grant has not to be increased. Condition No. 3 provides class of persons on which these Government Orders shall not be applicable.

6. They further submit that in the impugned order a finding has been recorded that the respondent No. 4 is not being given hundred percent or partial State grant. It has also been recorded in the impugned order that respondent No. 4 is not able to bear the extra financial burden from its own resources. They, therefore, submit that the impugned order has been passed lawfully and it does not suffer from any infirmity.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

FACTS

8. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that according to the petitioners they were engaged on contractual basis in the year 1999 for a definite period. The contract was renewed from time to time. They have neither faced the regular selection process for appointment nor the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India were applied. Respondent No. 4 undertakes projects which are funded by agencies like European Economic Community and World Bank. This fact has also been admitted by the petitioners in paragraph 8 of the writ petition.

9. According to the own case of the petitioners the respondent No. 4 Nigam has been