Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—This writ petition has been preferred by four petitioners aggrieved by the order of the third respondent, Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Pratapgarh dated 29.3.2014 rejecting their claim regarding regularization.

2. A brief reference of the factual aspects would suffice. All the petitioners claim that they were engaged on daily wage basis on the post of Watcher and they have worked for more than twenty years. The petitioner No. 1 claims that he was initially appointed on 1.9.1983, the petitioner No. 2 on 1.9.1981, the petitioner No. 3 on 1.1.1985 and the petitioner No. 4 on 1.7.1988. Earlier, they preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3800 (S/S) of 2000 for quashing their termination order and direction upon the opposite parties to regularize their services on class-IV posts. The said writ petition was disposed of on 16.5.2005 giving the benefit of another writ petition of similarly placed persons Vijay Shankar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 6055 (SS) of 1999, wherein a direction was issued to the opposite parties that the petitioner shall be entitled to minimum of the pay scale of Class-IV employees without any increment and a further direction was issued to consider his regularization.

3. It is stated that in compliance of the directions of this Court dated 16.5.2005 the respondents considered the case of the petitioners for regularization and rejected their claim vide order dated 17.2.2006 only on the ground that there were breaks in their service.

4. Dissatisfied with the order dated 17.2.2006 the petitioners preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3201 (S/S) of 2007. The said writ petition was allowed and the order dated 17.2.2006 was set aside by this Court on 11.2.2009. The respondents in compliance of the order of this Court dated 11.2.2009 constituted a selection committee and found that in absence of the clear position regarding the vacancies it was not possible to consider their regularization till the facts regarding vacancies are cleared and in the meantime the petitioners were granted minimum pay scale. The respondents also finalized a list of daily wagers who were engaged prior to 29.6.1991. In the said list the names of the petitioners were shown at Serial Nos. 22, 13, 29 and 48 respectively.

5. In the meantime the State Government issued a Government Order dated 8.9.2010 to consider the claim of regularization of daily wage and work charge employees who were engaged before 29.6.1991 and are continuing in service. It is stated that the third respondent submitted details of daily wagers, who were engaged before 29.6.1991 and are continuing in service.

6. On 23.6.2011 the State Government created 2022 posts of Group-D, however the claim of the petitioners was not considered in terms of the said Government Order in view of the two orders issued by the second respondent, Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration) dated 23.6.2011 and 24.6.2011. In the aforesaid orders certain conditions were imposed amongst other; (i) the daily wagers who are getting minimum of pay scale in pursuance of the direction issued by the High Court are not eligible and their candidature will not be considered; (ii) in case the matter is subjudice before the High Court or any other Court their services would not be considered for regularization.

7. The petitioners aggrieved by the aforesaid conditions mentioned in the order of the respondent No. 2 preferred Writ Petition No. 6615 (SS) of 2011. This Court set aside both the aforesaid conditions holding that the conditions mentioned by the second respondent were not in consonance with Rule-4 of the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001 (for short, “the Rules, 2001”). The Court further issued a direction to the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division to pass a fresh order. In compliance of the said order, the impugned order has been passed.

8. A counter