The court determined that the continuity in services is vital for eligibility under regularization rules, rejecting any artificial breaks articulated by the State.

JUDGMENT

Kshitij Shailendra, J.

Heard Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Prateek Singh, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. Various orders were passed in the present writ petition and perusal of order-sheets shows that time and again, original records summoned from the Department and received by this Court were also perused by the learned counsel appearing for both the sides. Recently also the record was again summoned, as the case was taken up after considerable period of time. This case is being heard for the last two days and the learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to peruse the record with the assistance of office of learned Chief Standing Counsel.

3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.10.2005, whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected by the respondent no.3 i.e. Divisional Forest Officer, Banda on the ground that the petitioner was not continuing in service in the year 2001 and that he has worked intermittently in the years 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000.

4. Various affidavits have been exchanged between the parties in the present writ petition. However, the controversy being quite limited, the Court focuses on the issue involved and the material referred to by the learned counsel for the parties in relation thereto.

5. The submission of Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner is that hundreds of writ petitions were filed before this Court in the decade of 1990 when the daily wagers were claiming regularization of their services. The writ petitions were decided and such decisions gave rise to Special Appeal No.653 of 1995 ( State of U.P. v. Putti Lal ). The said appeal was decided by a detailed judgment and order of this Court on 10.12.1997. The said judgment is reported in (1998) 1 UPLBEC 313. The relevant paragraph no.16 of the said judgment is as follows:-

"16. For the reasons given above, these writ petitions and the Appeals are partly allowed. The judgments impugned in the Appeals are set aside. The Government of U. P. is directed to appoint a Committee consisting of Secretaries of Finance and Forest Departments and the Legal Remembrancer or their nominees within a month of production of certified copy of this judgment before the Secretary, Forest Department, Uttar Pradesh. The Committee so appointed will consider the question of framing Scheme for regularisation/absorption of the petitioners and other similarly placed employees working in the Forest Department and the Schemes undertaken by the said Department. The Committee will pass speaking order and will submit its report within a period of three months of the date of its constitution by the Government. It will be open to the Association Union of the petitioners to make representation containing all their grievances in this regard before the Committee and if such a representation is made the same shall also be decided by speaking order by the said Committee within the same time specified above. The Government will thereafter pass appropriate order taking into consideration the report of the Committee and material available on the record, within one month of the receipt of the report of the Committee. The whole exercise by the Committee as well as by the Government should be completed within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment before the Government. Till then the parties shall maintain status quo."

6. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the State Government was directed to frame a scheme for regularization of the petitioners and other similarly placed employees w