1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Present intra court special appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2011 in Writ-A No. 57977 of 2011 (Ram Asrey Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.) by which learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition with following observations: -

“For the purpose of salary and other benefits, the petitioner claimed that his services as daily wager prior to the period of regularization should also be considered.

This issue is now no more res-integra.

This Court in Writ Petition No. 38220 of 2011 Amar Nath Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and others and several other cases including the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 43227 of 2011, Kashi Prasad v. State of U.P. and others has held that the services prior to the date of the regularization cannot be considered.

In the aforesaid cases, the various decisions of the Apex Court have been considered.

Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, I hold that the services prior to the date of the regularization cannot be considered for the purpose of salary and other benefits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the law relating to the pension, which is available prior to the date of the regularization should be made applicable in the case of the petitioner.

The contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner is only entitled for the pension and other benefits on the basis of the law, which was in existence after the regularization of his service.

In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.”

3. This much is reflected from the record that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in Lok Nirman Vibhag of the State on 16.8.1988 on daily wages. Thereafter, the petitioner-appellant has been sanctioned and made payment of salary at the minimum of the pay scale along with other allowances thereon w.e.f. 24.3.1993. Thereafter, Writ Petition No. 36603 of 1998 was filed by the petitioner and other persons, which was allowed on 30.11.2004 with following observations

“For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is a lowed to the extent that the petitioners are held eligible to be considered for regularisation under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (On Posts within the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, by the Selection Committee taking into account their suitability. The required consideration shall be made by the respondents as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within three months from the date of communication of the order. No order as to costs.”

4. It is contended that despite the aforesaid judgment dated 30.11.2004 the respondent authorities has regularized the services of the petitioner-appellant and other similarly circumstances persons only by order dated 17.2.2006. The regularization has been granted under the provisions of U.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (On Posts within the purview of the Public Service) Rules, 1979 treating the petitioner-appellant to be ad hoc Junior Engineer. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in fixing the salary of the petitioner-appellant at the minimum level in the pay scale on the date of his regularization as also on account of the action of the respondents in not making deductions towards General Provident Fund account treating the petitioner appellant as covered by the new pension scheme enforced from 1.4.2005, the petitioner-appellant filed writ petition in question being Writ-A No. 59777 of 2011. The said writ petition has been dismissed by learned Single Judge by judgment dated 10.10.2011 quoted above. Aggrieved with the same, present special appeal has been filed.

5. The petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 10.10.2011 on the ground that the judgments relied upon by learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition pertains to daily wage appointment and appointment on seasonal basis. Even though the petitioner-appellant was initially appointe