JUDGMENT Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are claiming compassionate appointment by virtue of the fact that their husbands were appointed and working with the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. on muster roll/ daily wage basis. 2. Husbands of petitioners No. 2 and 3 approached this Court by filing a writ petition in which a direction was given to consider their claim for regularization. Services of the husbands of petitioners No. 2 and 3 could not be regularized and in the meantime, they died. Thereafter petitioners No. 2 and 3 moved an application for giving compassionate appointment. Their claim for compassionate appointment was not considered, as such, they have approached this Court by way of this writ petition. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that husbands of petitioners No. 2 and 3 are to be treated as government servants for all practical purposes and it was the duty of the opposite parties to have regularized services of the husbands of petitioners No. 2 and 3, which the opposite parties have failed to do and once they have failed to regularize the services of the husbands of petitioners No. 2 and 3, petitioners No. 2 and 3 cannot be made to suffer for inaction on the part of the opposite parties. Further submission is that petitioners ,No. .2 and 3 shall be deemed to be the dependents of the regular employees as husbands of petitioners No. 2 and 3 would have been regularized at earlier point of time and since the opposite parties failed to act promptly, claim of the husbands of petitioners No. 2 and 3 for reguiarization could not mature. 4. Learned counsel for U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. submits that the husbands of petitioners No. 2 and 3 were working as daily wage/ muster roll basis and they were never regularized on the post in question. Though their claim for regularization was pending and in the meantime, they expired and as such, the deceased employees cannot be treated to be regular employees for the purposes of giving compassionate appointment to the dependents as their services have never been regularized at any point of time. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the widows and they are claiming compassionate appointment as their husbands were appointed on 1.1.1990 and 1.4.1991. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the widows and they are claiming compassionate appointment as their husbands were appointed on 1.1.1990 and 1.4.1991. Once their services have not been regularized, they cannot be treated to be regular employees and Dying-in-Harness Rules cannot be applied in respect of the petitioners. He has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case or Pawan Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, [ 2010 (28) LCD 1493 ] and other connected matters. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Appointment of petitioners No. 2 and 3 could not be considered only on the ground that services of the husbands of petitioners No. 2 and 3 could not be regularized though they were covered within the cut off date i.e. 29.6.1991. It is to be noted that the posts were created by the Government on 7.12.2010. These posts were created to comply the Reguiarization Rules of 9th July 1998 in which the cut off date was fixed as 29.6.1991. Husbands of petitioners No. 2 and 3 died on 24.11.2009 and 30.12.2009. The exercise was undertaken to create the posts to comply the reguiarization process by means of Government Order dated 7.12.2010. 7. It is common practice that every department has to evolve its own procedure and adopt the Rules which are promulgated by the State Government in respect of the State Government employees. U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam is an autonomous body and decision has to be taken by the Board of Directors to adopt the Reguiarization Rules on the basis of which reguiarization could have been done. Husbands of petitioner nos.2 and 3 could not see light of the day in respect of creation of posts and adaptation and implementation of the Regularization Rules of 9th July 1998. The posts themselves were created on 7.12.2010. Prior to creation of the posts, husbands of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 had died. Husbands of petitioner nos.2 and 3 could not see light of the day in respect of creation of posts and adaptation and implementation of the Regularization Rules of 9th July 1998. The posts themselves were created on 7.12.2010. Prior to creation of the posts, husbands of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 had died. Assumption on the part of petitioners No. 2 and 3 that services of their husbands ought to have been regularized after the promulgation of the Rules cannot be accepted as the U. P. Rajkiya Nirrnan Nigam is not the government department but is an autonomous body and the article of association- and memorandum of association require that a particular decision has to be taken by the Nigam and thereafter any decision of the Government will become applicable in respect of the Nigam. Since the posts were not available, therefore, services of the husbands of petitioners No. 2 and 3 could not be regularized. 8. The opposite parties have to see as to whether husbands of petitioners No. 2 and 3 were eligible for regularization and whether their right was existing or not. Even if the right was existing, then it has to be seen as to whether posts were existing or not. Learned counsel for the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigarn has submitted that posts were created on 7.12.2010 considering the cut off date as 29.6.1991 in order to regularize ail those persons, who were working on daily wage or muster roll basis. Since husbands of petitioners No. 2 and 3 died prior to the aforesaid creation of posts, therefore, they could not be regularized. In the light of the aforesaid fact, the argument of the learned counsel for the- petitioners that the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for inaction of the opposite parties cannot be accepted. Rogularization can only be done against an existing post. In absence of any post., regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 9. In the case of Pawan Kumar Yadav (supra), Full Bench of this Court held as under: "22. Rogularization can only be done against an existing post. In absence of any post., regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 9. In the case of Pawan Kumar Yadav (supra), Full Bench of this Court held as under: "22. In Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi (Supra) the Supreme Court has held "it is one thing to say that by reason of such contingencies services of the workcharge employee should be directed to be regularised, but it is another thing to say that although they were not absorbed in the permanent cadre, still on their deaths their dependants would be entitled to invoke the Rules". 23. The regular need of work, of which presumption has been set to arise after working for long number of years and the principles of legitimate expectations, would not mean that there was a regular vacancy. The word 'regular' vacancy has not been defined but that a distinction must be made between a need of regular employees, and the existence of regular vacancies. In Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi (Supra) the Supreme Court said; ‘indisputably the services of the deceased had not been regularised. In both the cases the writ petitions were filed but no effective relief thereto had been granted. !n the case of late Leeladhar Pandy, allegedly he was drawing salary on regular scale of pay. That may be so but the same would not mean that there existed a regular vacancy". 26. On the aforesaid discussion, and in view of the law laid down in General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi (Supra), we answer the questions posed as follows: - "1. A daily wager and work charge employee employed in connection with the affairs of the Uttar Pradesh, who is not holding any post, whether substantive or temporary, and is not appointed in any regular vacancy, even if he was working for more than 3 years, is not a 'Government servant' within the meaning of Rule 2 (a) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974, and thus his dependants on his death in harness are not entitled to compassionate appointment under these Rules. 2. 2. The judgments in Smt. Pushpa Lata Dixit v. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others, 19tn (18) ALR 591; Smt. Maya Devi v. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No.24231 of 1998 decided on 2.3.1998); State of U.P. v. Maya Devi (Special Appeal No.409 of 1998); Santosh Kumar Misra v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2001 (4) ESC (Alld) 1615; and Anju Misra v. General Manager, Kanpur Jal Sangthan, (2004) 1 UPLBEC 201 giving benefit of compassionate 'appointment to the dependants of daily wage and work charge employee have not been correctly decided." 10. In these circumstances, claim of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 for giving • compassionate appointment is not established from the record. 11. Writ petition on behalf of petitioner No. 1 is not maintainable as petitioner No. 1 is an Association and individual cause of action accrued in respect of petitioner nos.2 and 3. 12. the writ petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed.