JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri Ram Niwas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents. The pleadings are complete. With the consent of parties, the writ petition was heard. 2. The petitioners, serving as Class-IV employees in the Government Scheduled Caste Hostel (Women) at Allahabad, run and managed by the Department of Social Welfare, Government of U.P. on consolidated wages, have prayed for quashing an order dated 29.7.2008 and have prayed for regularization of their services like other similarly situated employees. Earlier the petitioners had filed a Writ Petition No. 9176 of 2006, Ratan Bihari and others v. State of U.P. and others, which was disposed of on 22.9.2007 with directions to consider their cases for regularization under the U.P. Regularization of Adhoc Appointments (On posts outside the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (in short the Rules of 1979) within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The Director, Social Welfare, U.P. has considered the matter and has, by his order dated 29.7.2008, disposed of their representations rejecting their prayers for regularization on the ground that there is no Government Order or statutory rules for regularising the employees working on consolidated pay. The Rules of 1979 are applicable to only those employees, who have been appointed on adhoc basis and thus the petitioners’ case is not covered by the Rules of 1979. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the Assistant Director (Headquarters), Social Welfare, U.P. Lucknow, issued an advertisement in daily newspapers ‘Rashtriya Sahara’ on 2.12.1994 inviting applications on the vacant posts of Class IV employees for Rasoia (Cook); Kahar (Waterman); Chaprasi (Peon); and Chaukidar (Watchman) in the pay-scale of Rs. 750-940. The advertisement provided that the posts are purely temporary, and that the selected candidates can be posted at any place in the State of U.P. A total number of 365 persons were selected including the petitioners and that by an order dated 10.10.1995, 102 persons out of the list in order of seniority were appointed on these Class IV posts on temporary basis. By an order dated 19.12.1995, 76 persons out of the list were appointed on consolidated pay of Rs. 750/- and another 76 persons out of the same list were also appointed on a consolidated pay by an order dated 29.2.1996. By an order dated 19.12.1995, 76 persons out of the list were appointed on consolidated pay of Rs. 750/- and another 76 persons out of the same list were also appointed on a consolidated pay by an order dated 29.2.1996. A Deputy Director in the Directorate of Social Welfare made these appointments on consolidated pay on the conditions that by the Government Order dated 22.3.1995 these posts on consolidated pay are sanctioned upto 29.2.1996 and thus the continuance of all the appointees on the consolidated pay will be subject to further sanction of the posts by the State Government. The order further provided that the sanction of these posts can be cancelled at any time without prior notice to the appointees. 4. The petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition No. 38229 of 1999 in which while inviting counter affidavit the respondents were directed to allow to draw the salary which they were drawing at that time. 5. Shri Kundan Singh Yadav filed a Claim Petition No. 1167 of 1996 in the U.P. Public Service Tribunal. The claim petition was allowed on 27.9.2007 with directions : “In the result the claim petition is allowed. The opposite parties No. 1 to 4 are directed to grant regular pay-scale of Rs. 750-940 to the petitioners from 10.12.1996. Cost is made easy.” The order was challenged by the State Government in Writ Petition No. 15314 of 2004, State of U.P. v. Kundan Singh Yadav. The writ petition was disposed of on 15.4.2004 with directions to the State Government to file a review petition. The review petition was dismissed on technical grounds, on which the Writ Petition No. 165 (S/B) of 2005, State of U.P. v. Kundan Singh Yadav, was filed which was again disposed of on 27.1.2005 with directions to U.P. Public Service Tribunal to decide all the issues within three months. The review petition was dismissed by the Tribunal in pursuance of the said order of the High Court on 26.4.2005. A Writ Petition No. 1394 (S/B) of 2005, State of U.P. v. Kundan Singh Yadav, was thereafter filed by the State of U.P. in the Lucknow High Court which was pending upto 28.11.2005. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the State Government allowed regular pay-scale of Rs.750-940 (revised pay-scale of Rs. 2550-3200) to the petitioners w.e.f. 10.12.1996 in compliance with the order of the Tribunal dated 27.9.2002. 6. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the State Government allowed regular pay-scale of Rs.750-940 (revised pay-scale of Rs. 2550-3200) to the petitioners w.e.f. 10.12.1996 in compliance with the order of the Tribunal dated 27.9.2002. 6. The Writ Petition No. 6798 (S/S) of 2006, Mohd. Saleem and others v. State of U.P., was filed praying for regularization. By an order dated 22.8.2006 the Lucknow High Court observed : “Since the petitioners were selected in pursuance of the advertisement, in which pay-scales were notified, though due to non-availability of the vacancies, they were given appointment on consolidated pay, but against the sanctioned posts, it is not open to the respondents to proceed for fresh selection against those vacancies. While setting aside the advertisement dated 25.1.2006, it was provided that the petitioners shall be allowed to work against the vacant posts and shall be paid the pay-scales as applicable to the posts”. 7. On 5.2.2007 the Director, Social Welfare, Government of U.P. issued an order regularizing 20 employees and appointed them on temporary basis in the department. It is stated in paragraph-9 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners that out of these 20 employees, the employees at serial No. 1 to 6; 19 and 20 were appointed like the petitioners on 29.12.1995. The candidates at serial No. 7 to 12; 14 and 17 were included in the list dated 19.2.1996 and that the employees at serial Nos. 15, 16 and 18, were included in the list dated 29.3.1996. One Shri Ajit Kumar Singh at serial No. 13 in the order dated 5.10.2007 was not included in any of the list of the year 1995-96. 8. By an order dated 15.12.2006 the Director, Social Welfare, regularized 13 employees out of these 93 included in the list dated 19.12.1995, and three in the list dated 29.2.1996. 9. Another Writ Petition No. 971 (S/S) of 2006, Atul Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, was filed in which directions were issued by the High Court. In pursuance of these directions Shri S.K. Verma, Director, Social Welfare, Government of U.P. issued orders on 22.3.2007 regularizing 07 more persons like the petitioners, who were included in the appointment letters dated 19.12.1995 and 29.2.1996, and appointed on temporary basis. 10. In pursuance of these directions Shri S.K. Verma, Director, Social Welfare, Government of U.P. issued orders on 22.3.2007 regularizing 07 more persons like the petitioners, who were included in the appointment letters dated 19.12.1995 and 29.2.1996, and appointed on temporary basis. 10. Similarly on 15.5.2007, 02 more persons and on 24.1.2008 another 02 persons out of said list of 1995-96 were regularized and appointed on temporary basis. 11. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed in reply to the rejoinder affidavit it is stated by Smt. Geeta Saroj, Superintendent, Government Certified Home, Allahabad that out of 365 candidates empaneled in 1995, the petitioner No. 1 Ratan Bihari was at serial No. 115; petitioner No. 2 was at serial No. 262 and petitioner No. 3 was at serial No. 202. The orders were issued by the Director, Social Welfare, Government of U.P. allowing regular salary to the persons out of the said lists dated 15.12.2006 (13); 5.2.2007 (20); 22.3.2007 (7); 15.5.2007 (2) and 24.1.2008 (2) on the orders issued by the Tribunal and the High Court from time to time. In paragraph-7 she has stated as follows : “7. That the allegations made in paras 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the supplementary affidavit are incorrect and denied. The candidates referred to in paragraphs under reply were given regular salary on the basis of orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in various writ petitions. It is absolutely incorrect to allege that the services of those employees were regularized.” 12. It is unfortunate that inspite of long drawn litigation beginning from 1999, and the filing of the several writ petitions, the Director, Social Welfare, Government of U.P. has not given the correct picture in any of his counter affidavits filed on his behalf. He has not given the total number of sanctioned posts of Class IV employees, in the department for the purposes of establishing Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Hostels. The Directorate had appointed 102 persons, out of list of 365 prepared, after selections in 1995 on regular basis. 152 persons were appointed on 10.10.1995 on fixed pay and by appointment orders dated 19.12.1995, 76 persons were appointed and another 76 persons were appointed on 29.2.1996 on consolidated pay. All these persons were allowed on fixed salary of Rs.750-950 per month which was later revised to Rs. 2550/- per month. 152 persons were appointed on 10.10.1995 on fixed pay and by appointment orders dated 19.12.1995, 76 persons were appointed and another 76 persons were appointed on 29.2.1996 on consolidated pay. All these persons were allowed on fixed salary of Rs.750-950 per month which was later revised to Rs. 2550/- per month. They are however not been paid regular salary except 44 persons in the orders issued from 15.12.2006 to 24.1.2008, out of these 152 persons. Since the regular salary is being paid to these 44 persons, on the directions of the Tribunal and the High Court, the seniority in the select list was not followed. 13. The Director should have provided the details of the number of posts which were sanctioned and were vacant, when the 362 candidates were empaneled. In any case 102 persons were appointed on temporary basis and that 76 on 19.12.1995 and another 76 on 29.2.1996 were appointed with a clear stipulation in their appointment letters, appointing them on consolidated pay that their continuance is subject to sanction of these posts on consolidated pay which was available by that time only upto 29.2.1996. Their services have not been dispensed with so far, raising a presumption that they were continued thereafter. 14. The reasons for which the posts on consolidated pay have not been sanctioned either on permanent or even on temporary basis have not been brought on record. 15. The Court is not much concerned here with the regularization of each persons under the Rules of 1979 or the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group ‘D’ Post Rules, 2001 as all the three petitioners are included in the select list of 1995-96 and were appointed on temporary basis on the posts sanctioned on consolidated pay upto 29.2.1996. 16. The department has accepted the orders of grant of regular pay to all the 154 persons appointed on fixed pay on 19.12.1995 and 29.2.1996 and have carried them out of these two lists. There is no mention in these lists that the regular pay has been granted to them awarding sanction of regular posts. 17. 16. The department has accepted the orders of grant of regular pay to all the 154 persons appointed on fixed pay on 19.12.1995 and 29.2.1996 and have carried them out of these two lists. There is no mention in these lists that the regular pay has been granted to them awarding sanction of regular posts. 17. In the facts and circumstances brought on the record the Court must presume that since 1996 there must have been sanction of posts and several posts may have been fallen vacant in the department and thus the writ petition is allowed with directions that the services of petitioners at serial No. 15, 202 and 262 in the select list dated 19.9.1995 and thereafter appointed on consolidated pay on the posts sanctioned by the State Government by orders dated 19.12.1995 and 29.2.1996 shall be allowed to continue in service. They shall be placed in the regular pay-scale with effect of their appointment on consolidated pay with all benefits of increments and allowances and shall be adjusted as and when the posts are sanctioned in the department. If the posts have not been sanctioned so far, the respondents are directed to sanction of posts and to adjust the petitioners on such posts as and when they are sanctioned. Their services shall not be dispensed with except on the ground of misconduct. There shall be no orders as to costs. ————