JUDGMENT S.S. Sodhi, J. 1. THE matter here concerns the regularisation of the services of adhoc employees of the Allahabad Development Authority working on daily wages. THE claim for regularisation being founded upon the instructions of Government of July 6, 1978 (Annexure 4) and of October 24. 1989 (Annexure R.A. 1) to the effect that the services of employees who had been working for more than three years, on the dates specified therein, be regularised. 2. ALL the Writ Petitioners, claiming regularisation, were appointed as Clerks on daily wages in 1989 except Naresh Chandra Pandey who was appointed as Supervisor in 1985, again on daily wages On the face of it none of the Writ Petitioners, except Naresh Chandra Pandey had completed 3 years service on the date specified in the lv89 instructions (Annexure R.A. 2). Confronted with this situation, the Writ petitioners sought to wriggle out of it on the plea that "There does not exist any justification for limiting the regularisation to persons who have completed three years before 11-10-1989. The fixation of 10-10-1989 as the cut off date for the purposes of regularisation of services is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable and there does not exist any rational justification for specifying this cut off date." 3. THE answer to the contention raised is however provided by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130 , wherein dealing with instructions similar to those here, namely those of July 6, 1978 and October 24. 1989, it was observed that they were, "not in the nature of a statute which is applicable to all existing and future situations. They were issued to meet a given situation facing the Government at a given point of time. In the circumstances, therefore, there was nothing wrong in prescribing a particular date by which the specified period of service (whether it is one year or two years) ought to have been put in." 4. FURTHER, as pointed out in the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Allahabad Development Authority, it was only in the year 1987 that the Government had sanctioned some regular posts against which regular appointment of Clerks on daily wages who were working at that time were made and the appointments so made were strictly in accordance with seniority. FURTHER, as pointed out in the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Allahabad Development Authority, it was only in the year 1987 that the Government had sanctioned some regular posts against which regular appointment of Clerks on daily wages who were working at that time were made and the appointments so made were strictly in accordance with seniority. It was also pointed out that the writ petitioners had been appointed from time to time on daily wages on different projects/schemes, as and when such projects and schemes came in existence. It was categorically stated that they were never transferred from one project to another. It could not, therefore be said, that while working on daily wages the Writ Petitioners were performing the work as done by the regularly appointed Clerks. It was also specifically stated that no work of any importance of any identical nature as that of regular Clerks were ever entrusted to those engaged on daily wages. Such being the situation, there was thus clearly no occasion to warrant regularisation of services of the Writ Petitioners including of Naresh Chandra Pandey. The learned Single Judge however proceeded to grant relief to the Writ Petitioners on the analogy of the directions contained in Civil Writ Petition 817 of 1992 Allahabad Development Authority v Dharm Vijay Singh decided on November 1, 1991 i.e. regularisation and security of service with the further direction that they be granted permanent status as and when posts are created by the Government. This is where, we are with respect, constrained to observe, that the learned single Judge, fell in error. 5. A reading of the judgment in Dharam Vijay Singh's case (supra), would show that it was in turn founded upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Catering cleaners of Southern Railways v. Chief Commercial Superintendent, Southern Railways, AIR 1991 SC 26 , were unlike in the present case, relief was granted on the basis of an undertaking given by the Counsel for the respondents There is no such undertaking here In favour of the Writ Petitioners. Even otherwise, on facts too, Dharam Vijay Singh's case (supra) Is distinguishable, in as much as there the matter arose from an award of the Labour Court directing regularisation of services of adhoc employees who had continued on their posts for over ten years. Even otherwise, on facts too, Dharam Vijay Singh's case (supra) Is distinguishable, in as much as there the matter arose from an award of the Labour Court directing regularisation of services of adhoc employees who had continued on their posts for over ten years. It was in these circumstances that the Court observed "it is difficult to say that the services of the respondents are not required by petitioner. There may be difficulty on the part of the petitioner in regularising the respondents in absence of the creation of the posts by the State Government but that controversy is not very relevant as the effect of the award would be to grant regular status to the respondents and entitle them to get regular pay scale which amounts security of tenure as well as the payment of salary to the respondents for the work done by them on equal basis as being paid to the other employees." The court then proceeded to direct that the award of the Labour Court be Implemented by regularising the services of the respondents workmen on their posts and to pay them salary for the posts and also to provide them security of service and the grant them permanent status as and when posts are created by the State Government. It will thus be seen that Dharam Vijay Singh's case (supra) is not a judicial precedent that fits into the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. WE accordingly hereby accept this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge and dismiss the writ petition. In the circumstances, there will however be no order as to costs.