JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. Inspite of time being granted, no counter-affidavit has been filed. 2. The claim of the petitioner for regularisation of his service has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was in continuous service from 16th April, 1992 onwards and prior to that there had been a break in service. Regularisation has been claimed under the U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001. Rule 4 of the Rules of 2001 provides the procedure for regularisation of service, which is extracted hereunder : 4. (1) Any person who- (a) was directly appointed on daily wage basis on a Group-D post in the Government service before June, 29,1991 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules; and (b) possessed requisite qualification prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such appointment on daily wage basis under the relevant service rules, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available in Group-D post on the date of commencement of these rules on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or order. 3. A perusal of clause (a) of Rule 4 of the Rules of 2001 indicates that a person who was directly appointed on a daily wage basis on a Group-D post on or before the 29th June, 1991 and was continuing in service on the date of commencement of these Rules would be considered for regularisation. 4. In the instant case, from a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the petitioner has been working since 31st May, 1991 i.e. prior to 29th June, 1991. The impugned order also clearly indicates that the petitioner was in service on the date of the commencement of the Rules of 2001. Consequently, both the parameters have been duly complied with. 5. The question is, whether break in service or artificial break in service would constitute a disability for ousting the claim of the petitioner. Rule 4 does not indicate anything, nor does it indicate that a daily wager should be in continuous service. Consequently, both the parameters have been duly complied with. 5. The question is, whether break in service or artificial break in service would constitute a disability for ousting the claim of the petitioner. Rule 4 does not indicate anything, nor does it indicate that a daily wager should be in continuous service. All that Rule 4(a) of the Rules of 2001 provides is that a person should be appointed on a daily wage basis prior to 29th June, 1991 and is continuing in service on the date of commencement of the Rules of 2001. Artificial break in service is to be ignored and cannot be taken into consideration nor does the Rule provide that the person should be in continuous service. The very nomenclature of the term “daily wager” does not indicate continuous service. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted again to the authority to reconsider the matter in the light of the observation made above within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ——————