JUDGMENT Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Sri Kamlesh Chandra Bajpai, Divisional Forest Officer is present in person alongwith the service record. 3. This writ petition raises a perennial dispute relating to the regularisation of a daily wager in service where on the one hand, it is contended that the petitioner has worked as Group-D daily wage employee ever since the month of January, 1991 and her candidature has remained unconsidered for being regularised in service in accordance with the statutory rules but on the other hand the opposite parties have strongly objected to the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the certificates filed alongwith this writ petition are inadmissible and thus, the right of consideration in favour of the petitioner has not accrued as per the statutory rules placed reliance upon. 4. From the perusal of record, this Court would note that an interim order was passed by this Court on 1.3.2004 which reads as under: “Notices on behalf of opposite parties have been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Let counter-affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder-affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks. List thereafter. Meanwhile, the representation preferred by the petitioner for payment of minimum pay scale, as contained in Annexure No. 2, shall be decided by the concerned opposite party by a speaking and a reasoned order.” 5. The order aforementioned is stated to have been duly served upon the competent authority but no decision was ever communicated to the petitioner as to why she was not entitled to receive the minimum pay scale. Resultantly, the petitioner was though allowed to work ever since the year 2001 till date but she has been paid wages only as per the wage structure revised by the Labour Department from time to time. 6. At this stage, when the writ petition has come up for hearing, this Court would take note of the fact that the rules known as Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointment on Group-D Posts Rules, 2001 have come to be superseded by a new set of rules known as the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016. Under the new rules, the cut off date fixed for eligibility is 31.12.2001. 7. Thus, having regard to the continuance of the petitioner since the year 2001 in the factual background as projected by the Divisional Forest Officer on the basis of service record, the claim of the petitioner was proceeded to be analysed within the scope of new rules. This Court has refrained from entering into the factual disputes prior to the year 2001 when it is alleged that some documents which have been placed on record were obtained and filed by the petitioner so as to take an undue advantage of the rules then in place. Though there is no direct proof on the basis of which such a plea has been advanced nor the officer who has issued the experience certificates has ever objected or denied the same but this Court would not enter into any such factual controversy for the reason that the claim of the petitioner as per the Rules of 2001 remained unconsidered. The continuity of the petitioner since the year 2001 being undisputed has thus to be understood within the scope of new Rules, 2016. 8. Now coming to the case of the petitioner, it is to be noted that she has been shown as working on daily wages since prior to 31.12.2001. The chart placed before the Court does indicate some breaks in petitioner’s service but reasons leading to break in service in absence of any clarity, cannot be attributed to the petitioner. It is also not the case that the scheme whereunder the petitioner was working came to an end and resultantly the break occurred. There is absolutely no reason recorded in the chart, as such, this Court can safely draw an inference of artificial break. 9. On a plain reading of the chart pertaining to every month, this Court would notice that the same is classified in five columns. Column-1 records serial number, column-2 indicates the month/year, column-3 mentions item number/month of the year, column-4 shows the sum paid and the last column is the remarks column. The information set out in column-3,4 and 5 is completely inconsistent. Column-1 records serial number, column-2 indicates the month/year, column-3 mentions item number/month of the year, column-4 shows the sum paid and the last column is the remarks column. The information set out in column-3,4 and 5 is completely inconsistent. For example, if this Court would attempt to understand as to what amount for the month of January, 2016 was paid to the daily wager, the chart does not indicate a complete picture of the name of the employee, the rate per day at which the amount became due and lastly as to when it was paid. It is also surprising to note that the Divisional Forest Officer has given no clue as to why the wages earned by daily wage employees are not transferred to their bank account every month. Such discrepancies in the record are highly objectionable and deserve to be taken a judicial notice of for the appropriate directions in general to be issued to the State so as to implement the mandate of law envisaged under Article 21 read with clause (e) of Article 39 of the Constitution of India. Daily wages are fixed by the labour department from time to time as per the wage policy of the State. Although the wage policy in relation to the low paid workers deserves revision at an interval of every five years but being a highly neglected class, as is well known, daily wagers have been subjected to discrimination of all sorts and their future is always ridden with uncertainties. Environmental protection, one of the essential responsibilities of the State, cannot be compromised with either in terms of deficiency of staff or payment of wages. The wages must be revised from time to time with due notification to all the departments. 10. This Court on repeated examination of diverse situations of the present nature has held and classified unjustified interruptions as artificial breaks. The discontinuity of the present description has been held not to obstruct the right of consideration of a daily wage employee particularly when a general rule which applies equally to one and all is bound to be implemented without any discrimination. 11. The officer present in the Court being the appointing authority does not dispute the position of law and the manner in which statutory rules and the language used therein have been interpreted. 11. The officer present in the Court being the appointing authority does not dispute the position of law and the manner in which statutory rules and the language used therein have been interpreted. What is projected as a cause of delay and reason for non-consideration of the petitioner’s candidature are some circulars issued by the head of the department emphasizing on rigid continuity in service pursuant whereto a committee is said to have met for examining the eligibility of candidates so as to forward a requisition to the State Government for approval of supernumerary posts in those divisions where posts are not available for the purpose of consideration of daily wage employees for regularisation as per the new Rules, 2016. 12. To appreciate the point, this Court would refer to Rule 5 and 6 of the Regularisation Rules of 2016 which, for ready reference, are reproduced below: “5. Subject to the provisions of rule 2, regularisation under these rules shall be done on available vacant post in a Government Department. Provided that if vacant post is not available then, as and when required, a supernumerary post may be created with the approval of the Government.” “6. (1) Any person who - (i) was directly engaged or employed or deployed or working on daily wages or on work charge or on contract in a Government Department on Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ post (outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) on or before December 31, 2001 and is still engaged or employed or deployed or working as such on the date of commencement of these rules; and (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such engagement or employment or deployment on daily wages or on work charge or on contract, under the relevant service rules and, subject to the provisions of above mentioned rules 2 and 5, shall be considered for regular appointment on Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ post (outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the date of the 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 orders. (2) In making regular appointments under these rules, reservations for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and other categories, shall be made in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, and the Uttar Pradesh Public Services(Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993, as amended from time to time, and the orders of the Government in force at the time of regularisation under these rules. (3) For the purpose of sub-rule (1), the appointing authority shall constitute a Selection Committee in accordance with the relevant provisions of service rules. (4) The appointing authority shall, having regard to the provisions of sub-rule (1), prepare an eligibility list of the candidates, arranged in order of seniority as determined from the date of engagement or employment or deployment on daily wages, on work charge or on contract and, if two or more persons are engaged or employed or deployed together, from the order in which their names are arranged in the said engagement or employment or deployment order. The list shall be placed before the Selection Committee alongwith their character rolls and such other relevant records, pertaining to them, as may be considered necessary to assess their suitability. (5) The Selection Committee shall consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of their records, referred to in sub-rule (4), and if it considers necessary, it may interview the candidates also to assess their suitability. (6) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of selected candidates arranging their names in order of seniority and forward the same to the appointing authority.” 13. From the perusal of Rule 5, it is evident that in a situation of non-availability of posts, the concerned department may forward the necessary details for sanction of supernumerary posts to the State Government and with its approval, the matter as regards regularisation of daily wage employees, may then be proceeded with. Insofar as the eligibility is concerned, the same is regulated under Rule 6 which does not lay a rigid continuity in service to be a condition precedent for consideration but what is contemplated under the rules is engagement of a daily wager prior to 31.12.2001 and having worked as such, till the enforcement of rules. Insofar as the eligibility is concerned, the same is regulated under Rule 6 which does not lay a rigid continuity in service to be a condition precedent for consideration but what is contemplated under the rules is engagement of a daily wager prior to 31.12.2001 and having worked as such, till the enforcement of rules. A daily wager is also required to be in service as on the date of enforcement of rules. 14. There may be numerous situations on the basis of which a right for consideration may not accrue but as far as continuity in service for the purpose of eligibility is concerned, this aspect of the matter has been dealt with in a catena of judgements and one such judgement rendered by this Court in the case of Jag Lal v. Director, Horticulture, (2003) 3 UPLBEC 2528 , is worth mention. In the said case, this Court has dealt with artificial breaks of various descriptions and it has been opined that artificial breaks beyond the control of daily wage employee, are bound to be ignored at the time when his/her candidature is considered for regularisation as per the statutory rules. 15. In the present case, where cut off date is fixed as 31.12.2001, the scrutiny of record reveals that barring two breaks in the year 2003 and 2012, the petitioner has substantially worked throughout in every calender year and discharged duties and has been paid wages as well. This Court has no hesitation to observe that the material placed before this Court merely reflects the existence of artificial breaks for the reason that the cause of discontinuity is not attributable to the petitioner, hence denial of the benefit of rules would definitely be harsh and discriminatory. There is a clear distinction between right of consideration and suitability. This distinction does not appear to have been understood by the authorities. 16. The record placed before the Court has revealed that eligibility of as many as four persons was considered for the purposes of sending requisition to the State Government for grant of approval to create the supernumerary posts but on verification of the service record by the Committee on 26.12.2016, the name of the petitioner does not seem to have been included. The four persons whose names fell for consideration for determination of eligibility are Sri Ramyash son of Sri Matapher, Kallo daughter of Babul, Smt. Shyama Devi wife of late Ram Dularey and Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava son of Sri Om Prakash Srivastava. Out of these four canddiates, names of Sri Ramyash son of Sri Matapher and Smt. Shyama Devi wife of late Ram Dularey have been included for the purpose of sanction of supernumerary posts but the name of the petitioner, simply on account of some breaks in service, has not been treated to be fit and thus requisition for sanction of supernumerary post has restricted to two posts. It is in this manner that the petitioner would continue to be a daily wage employee and she would stand deprived of being considered as per the rules framed in the year 2016. 17. The justification offered by the opposite parties for denying petitioner’s right of consideration is none other than the break in service. This ground is sought to be justified on the basis of circulars issued by the higher authorities according to which continuity without break is a condition precedent. The circulars issued by the Government authorities can firstly not overreach the statutory rules and secondly, the break in service not attributable to the petitioner cannot be a just cause on the basis of which such a valuable right would stand defeated. 18. This Court may also note that discontinuity of daily wage employees either on account of non-availability of work or the scheme having come to an end, are the convenient justifications evolved by the authorities to contest litigation but what is to be looked at is the engagement and functioning of a daily wage employee consistently as and when work is available. It is this consistency that would confer a right of consideration upon an employee. The suitability is to be judged on the basis of satisfactory work and conduct. This is not to suggest that a continuous break in service of years together may not be a valid ground for judging suitability but the State Government in that situation, while considering the name of a candidate, is bound to prescribe a criteria so that general application of statutory rules does not suffer a set back. This is not to suggest that a continuous break in service of years together may not be a valid ground for judging suitability but the State Government in that situation, while considering the name of a candidate, is bound to prescribe a criteria so that general application of statutory rules does not suffer a set back. The administrative authorities having circulated a circular dated 9.6.2017, have acted beyond the scope of rules and such a circular insisting on rigid continuity being in conflict with the mandate of statutory rules is clearly illegal arbitrary and discriminatory. 19. Having regard to above discussions on the controversy, this Court would issue the following general directions: (1) The daily wage employees working on the roll of State Government are bound to be paid the sum of monthly wages before the end of 15th day of every succeeding month at the prescribed rate revised from time to time without making any deduction of the national and gazetted holidays. (2) The monthly wages earned by daily wage employees be paid to them by transfer in their bank accounts within the time period as mentioned in the first direction. (3) The record of daily wage employees be maintained accurately by indicating his/her name, rate at which amount is paid, date of actual payment and the account number of daily wage employee apart from the details contained in the chart discussed hereinabove. (4) Sanction of supernumerary posts be processed and finalised for the regularisation of eligible daily wage employees by the respective departments not later than a period of six months and requisition forwarded by the respective departments may accordingly be finalised and any dereliction of this duty would entitle the employee to claim all the service benefits from the due date. 20. Insofar as the case at hand is concerned, the opposite parties are directed to treat the petitioner as eligible for the purpose of consideration of her candidature for regularisation on a Group-D post and accordingly the requisition forwarded for the sanction of supernumerary posts be treated modified and the same be processed and finalised by including the name of the petitioner. The entire exercise for regularisation of services shall be completed not later than a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of tis judgement, failing which all benefits as have been provided for in the general directions issued hereinabove shall equally accrue to the petitioner. In case requisition for approval of supernumerary posts has not been forwarded to the State Government till date, the exercise be finalised forthwith. 21. A copy of this judgement be also forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., to ensure monitoring of the cause of daily wagers in the light of general directions issued hereinabove. 22. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to cost.