JUDGMENT R.A. Sharma, J. - Petitioner I was appointed to perform clerical duties in the Department of Rural Engineering Service of the Uttar Pradesh Government on daily wages basis and he worked in the department from 1 April 1982 to 30 June 1989. Petitioner 2 was also appointed, on daily wages basis, to work as clerk in the same department and he has worked on that basis from January 1986 to 31 May 1989. The petitioners have however, not been permitted to work in the department after 30 June 1989 and 30 May 1989, respectively. They made representations to the higher authorities requesting therein for their continuation in the department and for regularisation of their services. No action having been taken the petitioners filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise their services on the post of clerk and to pay them same salary which is being paid to regularly appointed clerks in the department. 2. The State has filed counter-affidavit wherein the allegations made by the petitioners about their working on daily wages basis for the period mentioned above, have been admitted, but it has further been stated that as the appointments of the petitioners were made from time to time to clear the work load at different places, there has been break in their service during the aforesaid period. From perusal of annexures 1 and 2 to the counter-affidavit, it is clear that the petitioners have been working regularly on daily wages basis in the department for the period mentioned above and the break in service is of one or two days only. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in view of law declared by Supreme Court and this Court in various cases the petitioners are entitled to be regularised in their services and it is not open to the respondents to put an end to their services by prohibiting them from working in the department, after having permitted them to work for such a long period. This has been disputed by the respondents. 4. It is now settled by series of decisions of Supreme Court that it is unfair on the part of the Government to keep its employees on daily wages for long period and it is the duty of the State to take steps for regularising the casual employment within a reasonable time. This has been disputed by the respondents. 4. It is now settled by series of decisions of Supreme Court that it is unfair on the part of the Government to keep its employees on daily wages for long period and it is the duty of the State to take steps for regularising the casual employment within a reasonable time. But regularisation is permissible only to the employees working on daily wages discharging the same duties which are being done by the persons holding the regular posts, against which regularisation is sought. In the instant case petitioner I has worked for more than seven years and petitioner 2 has worked for more than three years on daily wages. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners were employed on daily wages to clear the work load at different places either on daily wages or on the consolidated fixed pay. It has also been stated in Para. 23 that the petitioners do not discharge the same duties which are done by the persons holding the posts of regular clerks. In view of the aforesaid averments regarding difference in the nature of work, no direction can be issued by this Court for regularisation of the petitioners in the clerical cadre. 5. It was, however, not open to the respondents to put an end to the employment of the petitioners without any rhyme or reason No plausible reasons have been disclosed in the counter-affidavit for not permitting the petitioners to work in the department even on daily wages. It has also rot been stated by the respondent in their counter-affidavit that there is no work in the department for the petitioners. In fact the counter-affidavit is silent on these questions. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners after hearing was over and the judgment was reserved, in which it has been mentioned that there are still vacancies against which the petitioners can be accommodated. But no reliance can be placed on it, as it was filed after the conclusion of the argument. Be that as it may, it was the duty of the respondents to disclose in the counter-affidavit, the reasons for not permitting the petitioners to work in the department. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. But no reliance can be placed on it, as it was filed after the conclusion of the argument. Be that as it may, it was the duty of the respondents to disclose in the counter-affidavit, the reasons for not permitting the petitioners to work in the department. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to work on daily wages till the work is available and if there are vacancies in the clerical cadre the petitioners' cases will be considered against those vacancies in accordance with law. If there are no vacancies available at present, if and when vacancies arise in future, the cases of the petitioners may be considered in accordance with law.