JUDGMENT NIRMAL YADAV, J. 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 2. The petitioner through this petition seeks to invoke jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.2.2004 (Annexure P-4) and also for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise his services in view of the government instructions dated 7.3.1996 and 18.3.1996. 3. Petitioner was appointed on daily-wage basis as Mali in the Horticulture Wing of Haryana Urban Development Authority at Panipat on 7.12.1992. The Government of Haryana issued instructions dated 7.3.1996 taking a policy decision for regularisation of services of the employees who were working on daily-wage basis and had completed 3 years service as on 31.1.1996. The aforesaid instructions dated 7.3.1996 reads as follows :- “Copy of letter No. 6/38/95-2GSI, dated 7.3.1996 from the Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana addressed to all the Heads of the Departments, etc. Subject :- Regularization of work- charged/Casual/daily rated employees. xx xx xx xx CASUAL/DAILY RATED EMPLOYEES The casual and daily rated employees who have completed five years service on 31st January, 1996 shall be regularised provided they have worked for a minimum period of 240 days in each year and the break in service in any year is not more than one month at a time. Such employees who have worked on different posts having different designations in the same department shall also be regularised, if they fulfil other conditions. On regularisation, they shall be put in the time scale of pay applicable to the lowest Group ‘D’ cadre in the Government and they would be entitled to all other allowances and benefits available to regular Government servants of the corresponding grade.” The above instructions were modified vide letter dated 18.3.1996, as under :- “I am directed to refer to Haryana Government letter No. 6/38/950-2GSI dated 7th March, 1996 vide which Government had issued instructions that the services of those Work- charged/Casual/Daily rated employees who have completed 5 years service on 31st January, 1996 and fulfil other conditions laid therein, should be regularised. 2. 2. This matter has further been considered and after careful consideration it has now been decided to regularise the services of all those work-charged/casual/Daily rated employees who have completed 3 years service on 31st January, 1996 and fulfil other conditions laid down in Haryana Govt. letter of even number dated 7th March, 1996. 3. Accordingly, Government instructions issued vide letter of even number dated 7th March, 1996 should be considered as modified to the extent that the work-charged/casual/Daily rated employee who have completed 3 years service on 31st January, 1996 instead of 5 years service on 31st January, 1996 should be eligible for regularisation.” From a perusal of the above instructions, it is abundantly clear that a daily-rated employee becomes eligible for regularisation when he fulfils the following conditions :- i) he has rendered 3 years service on or before 31.12.1996; ii) he is in service on that day; iii) he has worked for a limited period of 240 days in each year; and iv) the break in service should not be more than one month at a time. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner fulfilled the first 3 conditions. The only condition which did not find favour with the authorities for not regularising his services as per the aforesaid instructions, is that there was a break in service in the year 1993 for more than a month. The petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 2657 of 1997 which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide his representation within six months. The representation of the petitioner having been rejected vide order dated 21.10.1997 on the ground of ‘break in service for more than a month’, the petitioner filed another writ petition bearing C.W.P. No. 17584 of 1997. It was disposed of vide order dated 4.8.2003 with a direction that petitioner shall file a fresh representation within two months and decision thereon shall be taken by the respondents within two months thereafter. The petitioner submitted a fresh representation to respondent No.1 on 30.9.2003, which was also rejected vide order dated 24.2.2004 (Annexure P-4). 4. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 5 it is categorically pleaded that petitioner does not fulfil the criteria for regularization laid down in the Government instructions dated 7.3.1996 and 18.3.1996 as the break in service of the petitioner in the year 1993, is more than one month. 4. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 5 it is categorically pleaded that petitioner does not fulfil the criteria for regularization laid down in the Government instructions dated 7.3.1996 and 18.3.1996 as the break in service of the petitioner in the year 1993, is more than one month. It is further stated that the petitioner’s services have been regularised with effect from 1.7.2004 as per Government instructions dated 22.7.2004 issued in pursuance of notifications dated 1.10.2003 and 10.2.2004. The petitioner has also joined his duties vide joining report dated 10.9.2004. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Kavita Gandhi vs. State of Haryana and others, 1997 (4) RSJ 760, wherein the Division Bench has held as under :- “It is not necessary that the period of three years should be taken immediately preceding the cut-off date i.e. 31.1.1996. If the case of the petitioner is examined from this angle, she rendered more than three years complete service without any break prior to 31.1.1996 and she was in service on the said date. The break of 48 days in service of the petitioner in the year 1984 would, thus, be not relevant to be considered for regularization of her service. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure P-4 is quashed and the respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of this order. No order as to costs.” The learned counsel referred to another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bhim Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, C.W.P. No. 16862 of 2001, decided on 27.8.2002. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that since the petitioner did not fulfil the conditions as specified in the instructions dated 7.3.1996/18.3.1996, therefore, his services were not regularised under the said instructions. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Tek Chand vs. State of Haryana 2002(1) SCT 308 wherein also the same very instructions dated 7.3.1996/18.3.1996 were the subject matter of consideration and the Full Bench after delving deep into the matter held as under :- “34. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Tek Chand vs. State of Haryana 2002(1) SCT 308 wherein also the same very instructions dated 7.3.1996/18.3.1996 were the subject matter of consideration and the Full Bench after delving deep into the matter held as under :- “34. In view of the above, we hold that :- (i) The condition that the break in service should not be more than one month at a time is reasonable. However, the benefit of regularisation can be denied only in a case where the break is attributable to the employee and not in a case where the employer has caused the break. (ii) The instructions do not require that the employee should have attended to the duties on January 31, 1996. The only requirement is that his service should not have been terminated and that he should be in service on that day. (iii) While hearing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the court can adopt such procedure as it considers reasonable in the circumstances of the case. It can even record evidence. 35. As a result of the above, we hold that the view taken by a bench of this Court in Anand Kumar’s case to the effect that benefit of regularisation cannot be denied even in a case where the employee remains absent for reasons not attributable to the employer, is not correct. However, the view in so far as the break on account of the reasons attributable to the employer is concerned, embodies the correct statement of law.” 7. The decision rendered by the Full Bench is fully applicable to the facts of present case. We are afraid that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the cases of Kavita Gandhi and Bhim Singh are of no help to him. In Kavita Gandhi’s case (supra) although the Division Bench of this Court has held that prescribed years of completed service with reference to the cut off date mentioned in the notification applies to such employees also who have completed those number of years of service prior to the cut off date and not necessarily, immediately preceding the said date. The petitioner in that case, had rendered more than 3 years service without any break prior to 1.1.1994. The petitioner in that case, had rendered more than 3 years service without any break prior to 1.1.1994. Therefore, the break of 48 days in the year 1994 was held to be not relevant for consideration of regularisation of services. In Bhim Singh’s case (supra), the petitioner therein had been able to prove that his absence was beyond his control as he remained sick during the period of his absence, which he had proved by submitting the medical certificate. 8. In the present case, it is admitted that there is break of 38 days i.e. 1.10.1993 to 7.11.1993 in petitioner’s service. The petitioner has simply stated that he was not allowed to mark presence in the muster rolls, and has failed to substantiate his aforesaid plea with regard to break in service by producing any cogent documentary proof in support thereof. There is nothing on the record to prove that the absence was attributable to the employer. Even in the second representation, the petitioner has not pleaded any reasonable cause for his absence. Therefore, the petitioner did not fulfil the necessary conditions laid down for regularisation of services under the instructions dated 7.3.1996 and 18.3.1996. 9. We, therefore, find no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. -