Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. The State has filed this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Jind. Respondent-plaintiff was appointed as a Beldar on daily wages/work charge basis on 1.3.1983. He continued to work upto 18.11.1988 without any break. He was, however, not allowed to work when he reported on 19.11.1988. His services were dispensed with without affording any opportunity. His grievance is that in his place one person, namely, Jai Bhagwan, was retained despite he having been appointed much after the respondent-plaintiff. He accordingly served a notice under Section 80 C.P.C and thereafter filed a suit for mandatory injunction for directing the respondent-State to permit him to join as Beldar on regular basis with all service benefits w.e.f. 19.11.1988. 2. The suit was contested by the respondent-State. Some preliminary objections were raised on the ground that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties. It was pointed out that the respondent-plaintiff had himself absented from duty on 19.11.1988 and, thus, had no cause to file the suit. It was averred that the respondent-plaintiff was appointed as temporary Beldar on daily wages. In the year 1983, he worked only for 19 days, thereafter he was given chance to work on daily wages from time to time only against particular work on muster roll. The claim of the respondent-plaintiff that he was in continuous regular service for more than 5-1/2 years, thus, was denied. It was pointed out that the respondent-plaintiff was required to work from 1.11.1988 to 20.11.1988 but he failed to attend the duties from 19.11.1988 onwards. Accordingly, the prayer was made to dismiss the suit. The following issues were framed by the Trial Court:- "1. Whether the plaintiff has become a regular employee of the defendants, because he has already completed a continuous service of 240 days and he was deemed to be in service as alleged in the pIaint? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved whether the plaintiff is entitled to all expenses, like arrears of pay, allowances and seniority etc. on 19..11.88? OPP 3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD 4. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD 6. on 19..11.88? OPP 3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD 4. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff himself absented from the duties on 19.11.88 and therefore, he can not be allowed any benefits? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has not become regular employee of the State and, therefore, he is not entitled to file the suit? OPD 8. Relief." The suit was decreed and declaration was given that the respondent-plaintiff was entitled to all the benefits like arrears of pay and benefits w.e.f. 19.11.1988. 3 The Trial Court had decreed the suit primarily in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Piara Singh v. State ofHaryana, 1988(4) SLR 739. The State had filed appeal against this judgment. The judgment of the Trial Court was challenged on the ground that State had filed appeal against the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Piara Singh (supra) and, thus, the Trial Court had erred in relying on this judgment, which was yet to acquire finality. It was pointed out before the Court that the Honble Supreme Court had ordered to maintain status-quo during the pendency of the SLP filed against the judgment of Piara Singhs case (supra). The first Appellate Court, however, viewed that mere pendency of SLP against Piara Singhs case (Supra) would not mean that the law laid down in this case by this Court would cease to be operative. 4. The learned State counsel would contend that subsequently the view expressed by this Court in. Piara Singhs case (Supra) was not approved by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130. Honble Supreme Court observed as under so far as the case of workman is concerned:- "The High Court has also directed that all those employees who fall within the definition of workmen contained in the Industrial Disputes Act will also be entitled to regularisation on par with the work-charged employees in whose case it is directed that they should be regularised on completing five years of service in Punjab and four years of service in Haryana. This direction is given in favour of those casual labour and daily wagers who fall within the definition of workmen. This direction is given in favour of those casual labour and daily wagers who fall within the definition of workmen. In so far as work-charged employees, daily wage workers and casual labourers who do not fall within the definition of Workmen are concerned, the High Court had directed their regularisation on completion of one years service. We find this direction as untenable as the direction in the case of ad-hoc/temporary employees. In so far as the person belonging to the above categories and who fall within the definition of Workmen are concerned, the terms in which the direction has been given by the High Court cannot be sustained. While we agree that persons belonging to these categories continuing over a number of years have a right to claim regularisation and the authorities are under an obligation to consider their case for regularisation in a fair manner, keeping in view the principle enunciated by this Court, the blanket direction given cannot be sustained. We need not, however, pursue this discussion in view of the orders of the Government of Haryana contained in the letter dated 6.4.1990 which provide for regularisation of these persons on completion of ten years. We shall presently notice the contents of the said letter. In view of the same, no further directions are called for at this stage. The Government of Punjab, of course, does not appear to have issued any such orders governing these categories. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the Government of Punjab to verify the vacancy position in the categories of daily wagers and casual labour and frame a scheme of absorption in a fair and just manner providing for regularisation of these persons, having regard to their length of service and other relevant conditions. As many persons as possible shall be absorbed. The scheme shall be framed within six months from today." The judgment under appeal, which was allowed on the basis of law laid down in Piara Singhs case (supra) can not be upheld. Once the right to regularisation of an employee on completion of 240 days service was not approved by the Honble Supreme Court, the judgment under appeal can not be sustained. Once the right to regularisation of an employee on completion of 240 days service was not approved by the Honble Supreme Court, the judgment under appeal can not be sustained. Right to regularisation has now to be viewed in the light of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, 2006 (2) S.C.T. 462 : 2006 (2) SCT 462 (SC); [2006 (3) SLR 1 (SC)]. 5. The State counsel has also referred to Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2007 (1) SCT 214: [2007(1) SLR 388 (SC)] to say that mere completion of 240 days service in itself does not confer on the workman any right to be absorbed in regular service. It is further observed that daily wager, temporary employees or casual workers have no right to continue hold the post. Court has held that there is a distinction between the temporary and permanent government employees. Relevant observations are as under:- "13. It may be mentioned that a daily rated or casual worker is only a temporary employee, and it is well settled that a temporary employee has no right to the post vide State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, 1991 (1) SCT 760 (SC): 1991 (1) SCC 691; [1991(1) SLR 606 (SC)]. The term temporary employee is a general category which has under it several sub-categories e.g. casual employee, daily rated employee, ad hoc employee, etc. 14.The distinction between a temporary employee and a permanent employee is well settled. Whereas a permanent employee has a right to the post, a temporary employee has no right to the post. It is only a permanent employee who has a right to continue in service till the age of superannuation (unless he is dismissed or removed after an inquiry, or his service is terminated due to some other valid reason earlier). As regards a temporary employee, there is no age of superannuation because he has no right to the post at all. Hence, it follows that no direction can be passed in the case of any temporary employee that he should be continued till the age of superannuation. 15. As regards a temporary employee, there is no age of superannuation because he has no right to the post at all. Hence, it follows that no direction can be passed in the case of any temporary employee that he should be continued till the age of superannuation. 15. Similarly, no direction can be given that a daily wage employee should be paid salary of a regular employee vide State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, 2003 (4) SCT 485 (SC): 2003 (6) SCC 123 : [2003 (4) SLR 746 (SC)]." 6. The substantial question of law regarding the right of employee to seek regularisation is answered by saying that there is right of regularisation for a daily wager. Accordingly, the judgment under appeal can not be sustained and the same is set-aside. The Regular Second Appeal is, therefore, allowed.