JUDGMENT D. K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner alleges to have been appointed on work charge daily wage basis in the post of Typist in the Department since June. 1994. The petitioner alleges she is still working. By means of this writ petition, she has claimed for regularisation and payment of salary which has not been paid. Mr. H. P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner had been working continuously, she has acquired right to be considered for regularisation and payment of salary in lieu of her service rendered in the department.
2. Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner being a work charge daily wage labour has no right to the post, therefore, she cannot claim any right to be regularised. However, he very fairly concedes that if the petitioner had been working, she would be eligible to receive salary for the work done by her. The Government cannot exploit any one and obtain work from a person without making any payment.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner having been engaged on work charge daily wage basis, she cannot claim any right to the post as has been held in the case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi v. State of Bihar. 1997 176) FIR 237. Be that as it may. If the petitioner is working, she would be entitled to receive payment against the services rendered by her. The question of regularisation is dependent on the recruitment rules and the Government policy, if there is any. This Court cannot direct regularisation or appointment de hors the rule or the Government policy as has been held in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Suresh Kumar Verma, 1996 (2) SLR 321, in which the Apex Court had observed that judicial process cannot be utilised to support mode of recruitment tie hors the rule.
4. In the facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation contained in Annexures-5 and 7 to the writ petition in accordance with law particularly in respect of payment of remuneration to the petitioner having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the concerned respondent.
5. However, there will be no order as to cost.