JUDGMENT : Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Cousnel for the State respondents. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed that the writ in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the opposite parties to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Registration Clerk from the date the juniors to the petitioners have been regularised along with all consequential service benefits. 3. The facts of the case is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Registration Clerk in district Gonda as a daily rated employee. In the year 1990 the petitioner and other similarly placed persons filed Writ Petition No. 3721 of 1990 with the request that since the work and post is available, therefore, the petitioners be permitted to continue in service and as and when the regular selection for the post in question commences the candidature of the petitioners for regular selection be also considered. That writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 16.8.1991. The operative portion thereof is being reproduced herein below: "In view of what has been indicated herein above this writ petition succeeds and a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the opposite parties not to terminate their services till a regular selection for the said post is made and whenever any selection is made the petitioners shall be considered for regular selection as indicated above and paid salary which other registration clerks are given. In the matter of regular selection quota be fixed for appointment from amongst the daily rated employees and the petitioners be permitted to appear into the said selection. However, there shall be no order as to costs." 4. The State of U.P. challenged the aforesaid judgment and order dated 16.8.1991 (Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition) before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition and that Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 10.8.1993 (Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition). 5. In compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court which was later on confirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court the petitioner was permitted to discharge his duties as Registration Clerk continuously. 6. 3 to the writ petition). 5. In compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court which was later on confirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court the petitioner was permitted to discharge his duties as Registration Clerk continuously. 6. The office of Inspector General, Registration, U.P., Allahabad issued an order dated 9.12.1999 saying that in view of the Regularisation Rules, 1998 relating to the daily rated employees of category 'Ga' the services of the employees who have been appointed on or before 29.6.1991 on the daily wage basis and those employees who have continuously been working on or after 9.7.1998, the date of promulgation of Regularisation Rules, 1998 shall be considered for regularisation. 7. Since the petitioner was squarely covered with the guidelines of Regularisation Rules, 1998, inasmuch as, he was appointed directly on daily wage basis prior to 29.6.1991, more precisely in the year 1988 and was discharging his continuous duty on 9.7.1998, therefore, he requested the authorities concerned to regularise his service in the light of the provisions of Regularisation Rules, 1998. Not only the above vide judgment and order dated 16.8.1991 passed by this Court the specific direction was given with respect to consideration of petitioner for regular selection, therefore, the authority concerned should pass appropriate orders regularising the service of the petitioner but no order for regularization of the petitioner has been passed. However, in the meantime one F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner bearing Crime no. 162/1999 under section 420, 467, 468, 409, 471, 166, 167, 120B I.P.C. and the petitioner applied for bail on the pretext that the allegation against the petitioner is false and misconceived, inasmuch as, the documents in question were not kept by the petitioner and the petitioner was not at all responsible for keeping those documents with him and, therefore, he had not committed any offence as alleged. Considering the submission of the petitioner the Court of A.C.J.M., Gonda granted bail to the petitioner on 20.9.1999. However, the Inspector General, Registration, U.P., Allahabad issued a show cause notice dated 6.9.1999 to the petitioner seeking explanation about his culpability in the aforesaid crime case. The petitioner duly filed his explanation on 21.9.1999 apprising the authority concerned that the petitioner was not responsible to keep the alleged documents and there was no evidence indicating prima facie involvement of the petitioner. 8. The petitioner duly filed his explanation on 21.9.1999 apprising the authority concerned that the petitioner was not responsible to keep the alleged documents and there was no evidence indicating prima facie involvement of the petitioner. 8. Despite the aforesaid specific explanation dated 21.9.1999 of the petitioner the services of the petitioner were dispensed with vide order dated 21.9.1999 by the order of Inspector General, Registration, U.P., Lucknow in violation of settled proposition of law. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid termination order by filing writ petition no. 5428(S/S) 2001 and this Court was pleased to pass an interim order dated 1.11.2001. The interim order reads as under: " Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Admit. Let the opposite parties file their counter affidavit within six weeks. List thereafter for hearing in due course. The petitioner's contention is that his services have been terminated with a stigmatic order blaming him for having indulged in forgery and other irregularities pertaining to letter No. 5731/98. He submitted his explanation to the show cause notice served upon him in the year 1999 but no enquiry during the last two years was conducted on the basis of the allegations of forgery. In his explanation, the petitioner explained explained that he had no concern with the letter in question nor he was incharge of any such record. In spite of this, the competent authority has neither ordered for any enquiry nor arrived at any conclusion or finding holding the petitioner guilty. Instead, the competent authority straightaway passed the termination order reciting therein that the petitioner was involved in the forgery of the letter in question. This is a stigmatic order passed against the petitioner who was working as a daily wager for the last more than 13 years. Regularisation was under process and as has been pleaded by his learned counsel, the termination order is a devise to cause hindrance in his right and claim to be regularised. Considering all these aspects of the matter, it is provided that operation of the termination order shall remain stayed until further orders and the petitioner shall be allowed to continue on the post he was holding before the impugned order was passed. 9. Since this Court was pleased to grant interim order dated 1.11.2001, therefore, the authority concerned permitted the petitioner to remain in service. 9. Since this Court was pleased to grant interim order dated 1.11.2001, therefore, the authority concerned permitted the petitioner to remain in service. It is to be noted that both the writ petitions i.e. W.P. No. 5428(S/S)2001 and 3253(S/S)2005 were listed before this Court on 25.11.2016 and those writ petitions were dismissed for want of prosecution as counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions could not appear. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further, submitted that despite the aforesaid writ petitions being dismissed for want of prosecution on 25.11.2016, the petitioner remained in service. Both the aforesaid writ petitions have been restored by this Court vide order dated 5.12.2018. 10. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 16.8.1991 passed by this Court the services of the petitioner should have been regularised immediately after coming into force the Regularisation Rules, 1998 which came into being on 9.7.1998 but the authorities concerned has not passed any suitable order after 9.7.1998. Further, since one criminal case was lodged against the petitioner in the year 1999, therefore, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with illegally without following the due procedure of law, however resultant thereof this Court vide interim order dated 1.11.2001 granted confirm stay order in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the above learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in compliance of order of this Court dated 16.8.1991 the petitioner should have been regularised after 9.7.1998 when the particular Regularisation Rules, 1998 came into being. He has further submitted that since the criminal case of the year 1999 has yet not been concluded till date, therefore, the services of the petitioner may be regularized subject to the final outcome of the criminal case. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that one Anil Kumar Pandey who was a daily wage employee posted at Mainpuri was not covered with the Regularisation Rules, 1998, inasmuch as, he was not appointed directly as daily wage on or before 29.6.1991 but his services have been regularized by the Inspector General, Registration, U.P., Lucknow vide order dated 15.2.2005 ( Annexure no. 11 to the writ petition), therefore, when the junior to the petitioner have been regularized, petitioner should have also been regularized at least from the date his juniors have been regularized. 12. 11 to the writ petition), therefore, when the junior to the petitioner have been regularized, petitioner should have also been regularized at least from the date his juniors have been regularized. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Prem Ram vs. Managing Director, Uttarakhand Pay Jal & Nirman Nigam, Dehradun and others reported in (2015) 3 UPLBEC 1766 has held that if the juniors to the incumbent have been regularised, he shall also be regularised w.e.f. the date when his juniors were regularised. Para no. 9 of the judgment reads as under : "9. If that be so, there is no denying the fact that the persons who were junior to the appellant, having been engaged much later than him, steal a march over him in terms of regularization in service while the appellant remained embroiled in litigation over what was eventually found to be an illegal termination of his service. It is true that the appellant has already superannuated. That does not, however, make any difference. What is important is that the appellant had been appointed as early as in the year 1988 and had by the time the decision of this Court in Umadevi's (3) case (supra) pronounced, already completed more than 10 years service. Government has formulated rules for regularization of such daily-wagers, no matter the same are the subject matter of a challenge before the High Court. What is noteworthy is that neither the State Government nor the Jal Nigam has resented the idea of regularization of those who have served for over a decade. The rules providing for regularization are a sufficient enough indication of that fact. We do not, therefore, see any impediment in directing regularization of the service of the appellant on the analogy of his juniors with effect from the date his juniors were regularized and for the release of all retiral benefits in his favour on that basis by treating him to be in continuous service till the date of his superannuation. We make it clear that this direction will not entitle the appellant to claim any amount towards arrears of salary based on such regularization. 13. We make it clear that this direction will not entitle the appellant to claim any amount towards arrears of salary based on such regularization. 13. This Court in the case of Surendra Pal Bhardwaj vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2017(35) LCD 165 has held that if the juniors have been regularised, the incumbent is entitled for regularisation with all consequential benefits w.e.f. the date of regularisation of persons junior to him. Paragraph nos. 14,16 and 19 of the judgment are being reproduced herein below:- "14. Concededly, the petitioner was engaged in the year 1978. He was disengaged in the year 2000 by an oral order. He immediately preferred a writ petition in this Court which was allowed on 10th July, 2000. This Court in its order dated 10th July, 2000 has held that if the petitioner is working continuously, then his case be considered for regularisation in terms of the statutory Rules, 1998. The said decision was complied with by the authorities vide order dated 18th August, 2000, whereby the petitioner was allowed to join, and in pursuance of the said order he uninterruptedly worked till his retirement. The petitioner has categorically stated in paragraph-11 of the writ petition that his juniors have been regularised on supernumerary posts. This fact has not been specifically denied in the counter affidavit. 16. Indisputably, the petitioner's engagement was made prior to cut off date i.e. 29th June, 1991 as provided in the Rules, 1998. Thus, the petitioner was entitled for regularisation in terms of the Rules, 1998 as well as the Government Order dated 08th September, 2010. 19. After careful consideration of the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and the law mentioned above, I am of the view that the impugned order has not been passed in proper perspective and has been passed by ignoring the Rules, 1998 as well as the orders of this Court dated 10th July, 2000 and 22nd December, 2010. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22nd January, 2011 is set aside. In case the orders of the Court are not complied with, it is duty of the Court to balance equity. Accordingly, a direction is issued upon the third respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in the light of the observations made herein-above within two months from the date of communication of this order. In case the orders of the Court are not complied with, it is duty of the Court to balance equity. Accordingly, a direction is issued upon the third respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in the light of the observations made herein-above within two months from the date of communication of this order. In case the petitioner is regularised, needless to say that he will be regularised from the date when his juniors have been regularised and all the consequential benefits will follow." 14. Further, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner would be entitled for regularisation only after his acquittal from criminal charges. Considering the facts and circumstances of the issue, I am not agree with the aforesaid submission of the learned Standing Counsel, inasmuch as, the criminal case was registered against the petitioner in the year 1999 whereas the services of the petitioner should have been regularized after coming into force the Regularisation Rules, 1998, more precisely w.e.f. 9.7.1998, the date of promulgation of the regularisation rules. Further, about 19 years period have lapsed but the aforesaid criminal case is still pending, therefore, so as to balance the equity I am of the considered view that the services of the petitioner should have been regularised with effect from the date when his juniors / junior have been regularised and that regularisation order may have been subject to the final outcome of the criminal case. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question in its entirety and also considering the fact that the candidature of the petitioner was not considered for regularisation immediately after coming into force the Regularisation Rules, 1998 in compliance of the judgment and order dated 16.8.1991 and also the fact that juniors to the petitioner have already been regularised, therefore, the opposite parties are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for regularisation w.e.f. the date the juniors to the petitioner have been regularised strictly in accordance with law and also in the light of the Regularisation Rules, 1998 with expedition, say within the period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 16. 16. It is clarified that since the criminal case against the petitioner is still pending, therefore, in the order of regularisation it can be indicated by the competent authority that the said regularisation of the petitioner would be subject to the final outcome of the criminal proceedings pending before the appropriate criminal court. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequences to follow. 18. So far as the W.P. No. 5428(S/S) of 2001 is concerned it is noted that since the termination order dated 21.9.2001 was passed without following the due procedure of law, therefore, this Court was pleased to grant confirm stay order dated 1.11.2001 and the opposite parties could not demonstrate anything to show that the termination order dated 21.9.2001 is justifiable and has been issued strictly in accordance with law, therefore, the Writ Petition no. 5428(S/S) of 2001 is hereby allowed and the punishment order dated 21.9.2001 passed by Inspector General, Registration, U.P., Lucknow is hereby quashed. 19. The opposite parties are directed not to give effect to the aforesaid order against the petitioner.