U.P.Jal Nigam, Lucknow vs Yad Ram and others.

S.N.H. Zaidi, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Under challenge is the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 4.4.1997 by means of which, a direction has been issued to the U.P. Jal Nigam to regularise the services of the respondents within a given time, since they had been working for last more than eight years.

Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the aforesaid order, says that since the appointments of these respondents were not made against any sanctioned posts nor there is any post on which they may be regularised and their regularization is not permissible under law, therefore, direction issued is incapable of being complied with.

The regularization in service can be done only in case the daily wagers or adhoc employees fall within the criteria prescribed by any such rules, if at all such rules exist, under which regularization can be considered but regularization cannot be claimed in the absence of any such regularisation rules.

Regularization of the service can also be considered if a scheme is made for regularizing the services of employees, either engaged as daily wager or otherwise or if the Court so directs, keeping in mind the fact that there is necessity to frame a scheme or that there are certain rules which are applicable to the employees, but in the absence of any such rule or scheme or policy, the Court would be loath in issuing a direction for regularising the services of a daily wager.

Consideration of regularization in service can also not be ordered if there is no sanctioned post or clear vacancy.

In view of the specific plea of the appellant that there is no sanctioned post on which the regularization of the respondents may be considered, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.

We also find that the learned Single Judge instead of issuing a direction for consideration of regularisation in accordance with the rules, has straightaway issued a mandamus for regularising the services of the respondents, which also could not have been done, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The special appeal is allowed.

The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 4.4.1997 is set aside.

We may clarify that the dismissal of the writ petition of the respondents would not be a bar in considering their regularisation if they are still working and have become entitled under any service rules, which permit regularisation of daily wagers in the U.P. Jal Nigam and if they fall within the norms and criteria, as may be prescribed therein.