JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri H.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri D.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The appellant-University feels aggrieved by an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 26.10.2007 by means of which he has directed that the regularisation of the respondents be considered in accordance with the Scheme framed by the University in terms of the orders passed by the High Court in the earlier Writ Petition bearing No. 4677(SS) of 2000 and other connected matters decided on 16th April, 2002. The appellants do not dispute that the order passed in the earlier writ petition on 16th April, 2002 was not challenged by them and they have accepted the said order in its true spirit. Consequently they have framed a Scheme as per directive for regularisation of all the daily wagers which are covered under the scheme. 3. However, the Special Appeal bearing No. 395 of 2003 filed by the State against the said order was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 25th November, 2003 on the ground of delay. In Appeal the Court made following observation : “At no point of time for the last more than 10 years, neither the University nor the State took any objection in the continuance of these daily wagers throughout the year. We are informed that some of the respondents have put in 20/25 years of service but they have not been regularized nor they have been paid salary in the pay scale or minimum of the pay scale.” 4. The Court further made the following observation : “One more aspect which may be taken judicial notice of is that services of these daily wagers have not been dispensed with at any point of time nor it is the case of the appellant or the University that any decision was taken or has been taken to terminate their services meaning thereby that on the one hand, the daily wagers aforesaid are being deprived of their absorption in service on regular basis and the payment of the pay scale and on the other hand, they would be allowed to continue as daily wagers without any objection from the University or by the State. Since the daily wagers are being continuously allowed to work without break, it is not open for the State to say that they should not be considered for regularisation or minimum of the pay scale should not be paid to them.” 5. It appears that for some reason or the other the respondents’ claim for regularisation could not succeed and rather was not considered as they were not found eligible. The present writ petition was filed seeking benefit of the scheme. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition has directed that the cases of the respondents for regularisation be also considered in terms of the scheme and particularly clause (3) of the scheme against the existing vacancies and future vacancies, as the case may be, and in case they are eligible, their services be regularised. 6. Sri H.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants says that the University has no grievance against the direction for consideration of the regularisation in terms of the aforesaid directive which is undoubtedly in consonance with the earlier order passed by the High Court in the writ petition but the direction to consider the cases of these persons or daily wagers on future vacancies need be set aside. 7. Admittedly the engagement of daily wagers by the University has been done not necessarily against the existing vacancies or the sanctioned post and they have been continuously working for more than 10 years and in some cases more than 25-30 years for e.g. the respondent No. 1 is working since 1976. 8. In the earlier order passed in Writ Petition No. 4677(SS) of 2000 in which direction to frame the scheme was issued, it was clearly directed that the regularisation shall be considered in accordance with law as soon as the posts are sanctioned by the State Government. A further direction was issued that no fresh appointment be made till regularisation is considered. This direction clearly means that the daily wagers who are eligible under the scheme, shall continue to work and shall be considered for regularisation even on future vacancies. A further direction was issued that no fresh appointment be made till regularisation is considered. This direction clearly means that the daily wagers who are eligible under the scheme, shall continue to work and shall be considered for regularisation even on future vacancies. The direction was also necessary for the reason that when the University has engaged a large number of daily wagers and allowed them to continue for years and decades to the knowledge of the State Government who did not raise any objection at any point of time then the regularisation of such persons can only be considered for next and future vacancies. Substantial justice has been done between the parties. The daily wagers engaged by the University cannot be thrown out after such a long period and who have a right to be considered under a scheme framed for their regularisation. 9. There is no merit in the Special Appeal. The Special Appeal is dismissed. ———