JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rajesh Tandon, J. : Rule, Respondents waive service. Both the parties have agreed that the writ petition may be decided finally. 2. Heard Shri P. C. Jhingan counsel for the petitioner and Shri J. P. Joshi and Shri B. D. Kandpal counsel for respondent. 3. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in he nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 1.9.2003 after completing three years regular service on ad hoc basis on the post of "Tongia Teacher". 4. The petitioner has further prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of arrears of Dearness Allowances as regular appointed "Tongia Teacher". 5. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on daily wager as "Tongia Teacher" since September 1992, continuously and without any break in service. 6. In 1996 the petitioner has prayed in writ petition no. 2882/1996 for payment of wages at the rate being paid to regular appointed "Tongia Teacher" in the forest Department. The Allahabad High Court by the order dated 23.1.1996 passed the following order: "Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted six weeks time to file counter affidavit. List for admission therefore. Meanwhile the petitioner shall be paid such salary as may be equivalent to the minimum pay admissible to regularly appointed Tongia Teacher in the establishment. " Sd/ S. R. Singh 23.1.1996 7. The petitioner has stated that he has been paid minimum pay scale together with dearness allowance for sometime but thereafter the petitioner was not paid regularly. However the petitioner was directed to be paid a minimum pay in pursuance of the order passed by Allahabad High Court. The payment of dearness allowance was stopped to the petitioner. 8. The aforesaid writ petition no. 2882/1996 come up for hearing before Hon'ble A. K. Yog his lordship was pleased to pass the following order: "Petitioner was, admittedly, appointed as Bail Wager. The question raised in this petition has already been decided by this. Court, Accordingly, I direct the petitioner to approach the Respondents for considering his case for regularization, in case he has not already been considered according to relevant scheme. Petition stands disposed of. Interim order, if any stands discharged. No Costs." Dated 21.8.2000. 9. The question raised in this petition has already been decided by this. Court, Accordingly, I direct the petitioner to approach the Respondents for considering his case for regularization, in case he has not already been considered according to relevant scheme. Petition stands disposed of. Interim order, if any stands discharged. No Costs." Dated 21.8.2000. 9. In the meantime the State of Uttaranchal has framed the rules called the regularization of ad hoc employees on the post other then those covered by public Service Commission by the State of Uttaranchal vide notification no. 850/ Ka-2/2002 Dehradun dated 5.7.2002. Rule IV provides that after the petitioner was in continuous service up till 30 June 1998 on ad hoc basis and he has completed three years of service shall be regularized in accordance with class 4. The same is quoted below. 10. The petitioner has stated that from time to time he has made the representation for his regularization but no order has been passed. Even the directions of the Allahabad' High Court for considering the regularization has not been followed as yet. 11. According to the petitioner has was appointed on vacant post and as such he is entitled for the benefit of class-4 of the regularization rules 2002. 12. Without entering into the merits of the controversy, the respondents are directed to consider the regularization in pursuance of the govt. order of 2002. the respondents shall consider as to whether the petitioner is entitled for regularization in accordance with the aforesaid rules. 13. Apart from the aforesaid the respondents shall consider the following points. (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the Dearness allowance as well as other benefits in accordance with the rules applicable to him. (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of regularization as ad hoc or daily wager. 14. The respondents shall dispose of the representation in accordance with the observations as stated aforesaid and shall pass a reasoned order shall hearing the petitioner within a period of 3 weeks after producing the certified copy of the order. 15. With the aforesaid observations the writ petitioner is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.