Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. It is briefly stated that the facts leading to the filing of the present contempt petitions are noticed as under: 2. Petitioners were serving with the respondents as Baildar having been appointed somewhere in the year 1990 on daily wages. Services of the petitioners were terminated. The petitioners raised Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the appropriate Government made a reference to the Labour Court for answering the reference. Labour Court vide order dated 21.05.2001 set aside the termination of the petitioners and ordered the reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages. The order of the Labour Court was challenged by the State of Haryana in C.W.P. No. 1835 of 2002, however, this writ petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 3.10.2002 affirming the order of the Tribunal a special leave petition preferred therefrom also remained unsuccessful having been dismissed vide order dated 30.05.1005. 3. In view of the non compliance of the directions of the Labour Court petitioners filed contempt petition C.O.C.P. No. 937 of 2006. During the pendency of this petition all back wages were paid to the petitioner. However, the petitioners also raised plea regarding regularization of their services under the Government Policy dated 01.10.2003. On being put to notice respondent State produced letter dated 7.3.07 showing compliance of the Court direction regarding payment of back wages and a further statement was made that the case of the petitioner for regularization with effect from 1.10.03 has already been sent to the government for sanction. A further statement was made by the Accounts Officer, office of the Executive Engineer Divn. No. 1 PWD (B&R) Karnal that the case for the regularization of the petitioner shall be decided within a period of 4 months. This statement was taken on record as is evident from the order dated 8.3.07 passed in aforementioned contempt proceedings and consequently the contempt petition was disposed of as infructuous. 4. It is on the basis of the order dated 8.3.07 that these contempt petitions have been moved initiating contempt proceedings it may be useful to notice aforesaid order which is reproduced hereunder; Learned State counsel has produced a copy of letter dated 7.3.2007 in Court today which is taken on record. 4. It is on the basis of the order dated 8.3.07 that these contempt petitions have been moved initiating contempt proceedings it may be useful to notice aforesaid order which is reproduced hereunder; Learned State counsel has produced a copy of letter dated 7.3.2007 in Court today which is taken on record. Learned State counsel on the basis of the said letter stated that the back wages have been paid to the petitioner. It has further been stated that the case of the petitioner for regularization w.e.f. 1.10.2003 has already been sent to the Government for sanction. Mr. Siddharth Sarup, A.A.G., Haryana, on instructions from Jiwan Ram Saini, Divisional Accounts Officer, Office of Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Karnal states that the case for regularization shall be decided within a period of four months. In view of the above, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the present contempt petition has been rendered infructuous any may be disposed of as such. 5. These contempt proceedings have been initiated for alleged non-compliance of the aforesaid order passed in contempt petition. 6. Notice of these contempt petitions was issued to the other side of which reply has been filed. A categoric stand of the respondents is mat the petitioners have been granted the relief in terms of the order passed by the Labour Court dated 21.5.01 affirmed by the High Court in C.W.P. No. 1833 of 2002 and the Honble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) CC-8848-8851/2005. Regarding the claim of regularization it is stated that the petitioners are not entitled to regularization in view of the Haryana Government Instructions bearing No. 43/31/06-1/GSI dated 25.07.2007 as also the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case titled State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and Ors. Referred to 7 Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is, however, not satisfied with the reply and has pleaded that the respondents are guilty of contempt of Court having denied regularization in terms of the order dated 8.3.07. During the course of the proceedings learned Counsel for the petitioner argued and placed on record copy of the order alleged to have been passed by the respondents regularizing as many as 14 persons including the petitioners. This order, however, is without any number and date, a copy of this order was furnished to Mr. R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for seeking fresh instructions. This order, however, is without any number and date, a copy of this order was furnished to Mr. R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for seeking fresh instructions. An affidavit of Mr. K.K. Nain, Executive Engineer, Provl. Division No. 1 PWD (B&R) Karnal, Haryana has been filed stating therein that his office has issued order No. 145 dated 30.06.2004 regarding regularization of daily wagers and the name of the petitioner does not figure in the said order. From the perusal of the aforesaid affidavit and the copy of the order placed on record it appears that as many as 9 persons were ordered to be regularized on 30.06.04 excluding the petitioners. 8. A short question which arises for consideration is whether any contempt is made out against the respondents on the strength of the order dated 8.3.07 and whether the respondents can be compelled to regularize the services of the petitioners. It is the stand of the respondents that in view of the judgment in the State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and Ors. and subsequent orders passed by Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 7201 of 2007 and order passed for Contempt Petition No. 262 of 2008, these contempt petitions are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties in detail and perused the record. The issue of regularization of daily wagers in public service has been conclusively decided by the constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Uma Devis case (supra). Relevant observations in the aforesaid judgment having impact on the present case are reproduced hereunder: No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on at par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. ** ** ** One aspect needs to be clarified. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. ** ** ** One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents. (Emphasis supplied) 10. From the observations made by the Apex Court noticed hereinabove it is no more res Integra that a daily wager or a daily employee has a right to seek regularization even on the strength of a concluded judgment, decree or settlement mat might have remained unimplemented as on the date of the pronouncement of the judgment of Apex Court on 10.04.06. The Government Policy relied upon by the petitioners is prior to the Uma Devis judgment. The attractions contained in the order dated 08.03.2007 are admittedly after the Uma Devis Judgment and remain unimplemented till date as is the petitioners own case. In view of the ratio of Uma Devis judgment no direction can be issued by this Court even on the basis of any Government Policy or unimplemented judgment or an undertaking to regularize. Such a direction would be de horse the dictum of Uma Devis judgment. 11. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has however, brought to my notice a judgment dated 09.10.07 titled UP State Electricity Board v. P.C. Pandey and Ors. 2008 (1) R.S.J. 304 in the aforesaid case Apex Court made following observations: In the present case many of the writ petitioners have been working from 1985 i.e. they have put in about 22 years service and it will surely not be reasonable if their claim for regularization is denied even after such a long period of service. Hence apart from discrimination. Article 14 of the Constitution will also be violated on the ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness if employees who have put in such a long service are denied the benefit of regularization and are made to face the same selection which fresh recruits have to face. 12. Another judgment relied upon by the respondent is Post Master General, Kolkata and Ors. v. Tutu Das (Dutta) wherein taking into consideration the ratio of the Uma Devis judgment the Honble Supreme Court made following observations: Even otherwise this Court is bound by the Constitution Bench decision. Attention of the High Court unfortunately was not drawn to a large number of recent decisions which had been rendered by this Court. 13. Another argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that some of the similarly situated persons have been regularized by the respondent-State who were junior to the petitioners but the petitioners have been discriminated against and denied similar treatment of regularization. Again reference is made to the order No. 145 dated 30.06.04 whereby as many as 9 persons have been regularized by the respondents. The argument is two fold, one that the petitioners were also recommended for such appointment along with these 9 persons and they have been left out in the aforesaid order. Again reference is made to the order No. 145 dated 30.06.04 whereby as many as 9 persons have been regularized by the respondents. The argument is two fold, one that the petitioners were also recommended for such appointment along with these 9 persons and they have been left out in the aforesaid order. It has also been argued that similar order was passed by the respondent State whereby as many as 14 persons were regularized. Respondent State has denied the factum of regularization of 14 persons as claimed by the petitioner though regularization of 9 persons in terms of the order dated 3.6.04 is admitted. Assuming that the respondents have adopted different yardsticks and petitioners have been denied the regularization though placed similarly this Court in contempt proceedings cannot and ought not issue any directions. Firstly there is no such direction to regularize the petitioners. The only direction contained in the order dated 8.3.07 is to accord consideration. Respondents have accorded consideration pursuant to the Court Order and passed the order No. 202 dated 10.8.07 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularization in the light of Uma Devis judgment. The question of discrimination cannot be gone into in contempt proceedings otherwise also Article 14 is based upon positive concept of equality and if any order is issued by the State in violation of law no direction can be issued to repeat the same as equality class cannot be invoked in negative manner. This position is also made clear by the Apex Court in case of Post Master General (supra) wherein following observations have been made: Equality is a positive concept. Therefore, it cannot be invoked where any illegality has been committed or where no legal right is established. For what has been stated above these petitions are devoid of any merit, contempt proceedings are accordingly dropped and rule discharged.