The court upheld that petitioners did not meet the necessary conditions for regularization as daily wage workers under the applicable rules, due to insufficient employment records.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri. Daya Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.2, and Sri Yashwant Singh, learned Standing Counsel.

2. Present writ petition was filed in the year 2009 and no interim order was granted and finally it is decided after more than 17 years by present judgment.

3. Petitioners, five in numbers have approached this Court in the year 2009 that they were working since 1990 as Awazdar Karmchari, ¼,otnkj½ on daily wage to undertake work of a Switch Man, in absence of regular Switchman.

4. It was further case of petitioners that though they worked for 30 days in a month, but were paid salary for only of 10 days, though said assertion remained without any supportive material as well as why any objection was not taken during last 19 years.

5. It was further case of petitioners that respondent Kanpur Nagar Nigam had prepared a seniority list of ‘Awazdar’, but respondents have adopted a pick and choose policy to regularize junior Awazdars, ignoring petitioners despite senior in said list.

6. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioners have earlier approached this Court when respondents were contemplating for a recruitment process for appointment of Switchman against vacant posts that before any such recruitment process commenced, petitioners’ case for regularization be considered in terms of Government Order dated 10.7.2003 read with U.P. Daily Wage Employees (Regularization of Group ‘D’ Post) Rules, 2001 (in brief ‘Rules, 2001’).

7. The Writ Petition No.28786 of 2003, filed earlier by similarly situated persons was disposed of vide an order dated 14.8.2003. Subsequently, another Writ Petition No.15292 of 2006 was filed which was also disposed of vide an order dated 21.3.2006 with a direction that cases of petitioners and others, be considered for regularization in terms of aforesaid ‘Rules 2001’.

8. In pursuance of above referred orders, cases of petitioners and others were considered, however, their respective claim for regularization was rejected on a ground that they do not fall within ambit of ‘Rules, 2001’ and they have worked as daily wagers for not more than 10 days in a month and accordingly have not worked for 240 days in a year and therefore, they were not ‘daily wagers’. It was also mentioned that no seniority list in terms of any service rules was prepared for Awazdars and no procedure was undertaken to regularize any Awazdar independently or from purported list. No Awazdar was appointed against any substantive post. For reference, relevant part of the order is reproduced hereinafter:

(Emphasis supplied)

9. Above referred order dated 2.2.2009 was under challenge in the present writ petition, by petitioner’s who are 5 in numbers.

10. Admittedly, petitioners have not worked after 2006 and no interim order was granted in the present writ petition, therefore it would be a major adverse factor even if petitioners make out a case that they can be considered for regularization.

11. In the present case pleadings were exchanged and this Court has passed several orders for filing affidavits for providing relevant informations such as seniority list, manner of regularization, manner of selections etc. For reference, relevant orders being orders dated 3.11.2025, 19.11.2025 and 3.12.2025 are reproduced hereinafter:

Order dated 03.11.2025

“Heard Mr. Daya Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Abhinava Krishna Srivast