JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in 1989 and he had worked till 1992. Thereafter his services having been discontinued, a writ petition was moved alongwith several others, being Writ Petition No. 36846 of 1992 which is still pending. In the said order It was pointed out that if any appointment is mode by the respondent No. 2 the petitioner shall be given preference for appointment unless there are specific charges against any of the petitioner. By reason of the said order the petitioner was given fresh appointment in 1995 and it is alleged that he had continued till 10 7-1997. But subsecuently his payment of wages has been stopped,
2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner claims that he may be permitted to continue till regularly selected candidate in Class III post joins and that his work may not be interfered with and that his case may be considered for regularisation.
3. Sri Madan Mohan Lal Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in several decisions cited by him the petitioner is eligible and entitled to continue in service and for absorption.
4. Sri Parihar, learned Standing counsel on the other hand submits that the petitioner having been engaged on daily wages basis he has not acquired any legal right. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.
5. Sri Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision in the case of State of Haryana v. Piyara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 1930 in support of his contention with regard to regularisation. In the said judgment certain procedure has been laid down for regularisation of the casual employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that daily wage employees are also casual employees. Therefore, the petitioner may also be considered for regularisation. He also relies on the decision in the case of Central Welfare Board v. Anjali Bepari (MS) and Ors., 1996 SCC (L & S) 1358 wherein a Scheme has been directed to be constituted for regularisation of such employees on the basis of seniority, He also relies on the decision in the case of Inspector General of Registration U.P. and Anr. v. Avdesh Kumar and Ors., 1996 SCC (L&S) 1222.
6. So far as the decision in the case of Avdesh Kumar (supra) is concerned the same can not apply in the present facts and circumstances of the case, as the said case proceeds in respect Registration Clerks, which is distinguishable. The judgment in the said case has confined itself to the employees of Registration clerk without laying down any specific direction for general application, as would be apparent from the judgment itself. Therefore, the ratio decided in the said case can not help to the petitioner.
7. So far as the decision in the case of Central Welfare Boards/. Anjali Bepari (supra) is concerned in the said case it was held that the petitioner therein can not be regularised in any of the Scheme and, therefore relief granted to the petitioner therein was that she may be continued and dispensing of service would be in the order of seniority on the principle of last come first to go' Therefore, the said decision also does not help the petitioner, in any manner. So far as the decision in the case of State of Haryana v. Piayra Singh (supra) is concerned the same has laid down certain principles and on the basis of certain contingencies, as specified therein. But on the basis of material placed before this Court such contingency are not available on record, in order to decide the . issues herein. The question of regularisation can be considered only when the scheme is formulated, in the light of decision in the case of State of Haryana v. Piyara Singh (supra). In as much as in the said judgment it was observed that the persons who have been working without reference to the Employment Exchance deriations from the established principle of recruitment viz, back doer entry, has been depricated. Thus the said decision can help the petitioner only when certain scheme is formulated.
8. On the other hand learned Standing counsel relied on the decision in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Suresh Kumar Verma and Ors., 1996 (2) SLR 321 wherein it has been held that the persons who have been engaged without any reference to the employment exchange and without holding proper selection, in the event the judicial process would be utilised as the mode of recruitment dehors the rule. In the said case also the question was confined to continuation of daily wage labour. The question is dependent on various other contingencies, as has been specified in the said judgment. In that view of the matter I do not find any reason to interfere with the case made out in this writ petition. However, if the petitioner makes a representation the respondents shall consider the same and dispose of in accordance with law.
9. It was also pointed out by the learned Standing counsel that the question involved in the present writ petition is also involved in the earlier writ petition, which is still pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of fresh appointment given to the petitioner the cause of action of the earlier petitioner the cause of action of the earlier petition has ceased. But the facts remains that the petitioner can seek amendment of the earlier writ petition. Therefore it can not be said that the cause of action of earlier writ petition has ceased. However it will be open to the petitioner to bring subsequent events which is subject matter of present writ petition, in the earlier writ petition as well.
10. For all these reasons the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.