JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. RULE. Learned Advocate Mr. Deep D. Vyas waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-Corporation. 2. These two petitions arise in same background, hence at the request of learned Advocates for the parties, are taken up for joint hearing and disposal. The facts are recorded from the lead matter, SCA No. 7669 of 2019. 3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following prayers: “(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to call for the file/record on which the case of the petitioner for reinstatement/regularization has been processed by the respondents. (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order and/or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring omission/inaction and impugned order dated 28.02.2019 at Annexure-A passed by the respondent No. 3 is illegal, unjust, arbitrary in derogation of respondents own policy, is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, contemptuous in nature and suffering from vice of non application of mind and further be pleased to quash and set aside an impugned order dated 28.02.2019 at Annexure-A whilst directing the respondents to take back the petitioner in his service and after completion of requisite service, if any deficit, to regularize the services of the petitioner with continuity and consequential benefits with interest. (D) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant an interim relief directing the respondents to take back the petitioner in his services and after completion of requisite to regularize his services, during the pendency and final disposal of the aforementioned petition. (E) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass any other and further orders and grant any other and further reliefs that may be deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (F) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to allow the aforementioned petition with heavy costs ad compensation to the petitioner for the tremendous harassment is caused by the respondents for more than 19 years.” 4. It is case where the petitioner was employed as a daily wager/cleaner with the respondents. The petitioner had never enjoyed any public holidays and other holidays though was treated at par with the other class-IV employees. 5. It is case where the petitioner was employed as a daily wager/cleaner with the respondents. The petitioner had never enjoyed any public holidays and other holidays though was treated at par with the other class-IV employees. 5. It is argued that it is the policy of the respondents to regularize the services of daily wagers after completion of 5 years and 900 days. It is submitted that it is highly unfair on the part of the respondents that though the petitioner has completed requisite number of years of service, he was told not to come on job. 5.1 It is submitted that in derogation to its own policy and in defiance of the order passed by the High Court, the respondents have, in an unfair manner, taken back the juniors of the petitioner in service and have further directed to regularize their services on completion of 5 years and 900 days in service. Even though the petitioner had earlier preferred number of litigations before this Court and had succeeded, the respondents are acting in sheer illegal and unfair manner. Lastly, the petitioner had preferred SCA No. 14014 of 2013 before this Court. During pendency of the said petition, a categorical order dated 15.06.2018 was passed to the effect that the case of the petitioner for reinstatement and regularization should be considered positively and sympathetically. The respondents, in purported compliance of the said order dated 15.06.2018, passed a cryptic order dated 27.07.2018 reiterating that the petitioner has not completed 5 years and 900 days and therefore, cannot be regularized. This order of the respondents was also quashed and set aside by this Court while rendering final judgment and order dated 29.11.2018 in SCA No. 13957 of 2013, wherein this Court held that the petitioner has completed 5 years and 900 days and his case for reinstatement and regularization should be reconsidered. In pursuance to judgment and order dated 29.11.2018, the respondents have passed order dated 28.02.2019 reiterating its earlier stand. 5.2 It is the case of the petitioner that he was orally conveyed on 01.07.2000 not to come on job from then onwards under the guise that the cars which he was cleaning had to be put in garage due to ensuing election. This stand was taken by the respondents so that they may not have to regularize the petitioner and they can appoint their near and dear. This stand was taken by the respondents so that they may not have to regularize the petitioner and they can appoint their near and dear. It is the case that against such unfair and arbitrary exercise, the petitioner filed SCA No. 6404 of 2000 before this Court. The respondents did not even file reply in the said petition. However, during the course of arguments, the respondents contended that the petitioner had not completed 5 years and 900 days and therefore, he cannot be regularized in service. This Court had not acceded to the arguments of the respondents and had expressed a doubt about the contention of the respondents. It is submitted that vide judgment and order dated 12.06.2001, this Court had allowed the said petition. 5.3 It is submitted that as the respondents did not comply with the directions of this Court within the stipulated time, the petitioner was again constrained to file SCA No. 1632 of 2001 for taking appropriate action against the respondents for contempt of the Court. It is submitted that during the pendency of the said application, in a hurried manner, the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 29.09.2001 that since he had not completed 5 years and 900 days in service, he cannot be regularized. It is submitted that vide order dated 01.11.2001, while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, the said application was disposed of as withdrawn. 5.4 It is submitted that while availing the said liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 02.11.2001, the petitioner preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 2016 of 2001 in the said petition for revival of the same and for review and modification of order dated 12.06.2001 rendered in the said petition. It is submitted that in the said MCA, it was categorically pointed out that the respondents were misleading the Court by stating that the petitioner had not completed 5 years and 900 days. It is submitted that on perusing the service record of the petitioner produced by the respondents themselves, it is clear that the petitioner had completed 5 years and 900 days on 01.07.2000 and he was required to be regularized in service. It is submitted that on perusing the service record of the petitioner produced by the respondents themselves, it is clear that the petitioner had completed 5 years and 900 days on 01.07.2000 and he was required to be regularized in service. It is submitted that judgment and order dated 27.12.2001 passed in SCA No. 5019 of 2001 and allied matters was placed on record, wherein it was directed that if service of any employee is terminated, the respondent Corporation shall review the situation and if termination is inconsistent with the seniority, i.e. if the seniors have been terminated while retaining the juniors, departmental head shall suitably rectify the mistake so as to bring the retrenchment in conformity with the seniority list. 5.5 It is argued that award was passed by the Labour Court, whereby a formula was evolved for calculating 5 years and 900 days of service of daily wagers. The said award was providing formula to the effect that total number of working days are to be divided by 180 days and if the answer is five or more then the daily wager is to be considered for regularization. It is submitted that the said policy has been adopted by the respondents vide various circulars/resolutions. It is submitted that as per the respondents’ own record, the petitioner had completed 1467 days of service as on 01.07.2000. Therefore, the petitioner had completed 5 years and 900 days, i.e. 1467 days (total working days) = 8 years. 6. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent-Corporation submitted that the petitioner was employed on ad hoc basis as daily wager on 08.09.1995. The record suggests that the petitioner was never recruited through public advertisement or by requisitioning from the Employment Exchange or through regular recruitment channels or through selection process and his services were taken purely on ad hoc and temporary basis depending upon exigency of work. The petitioner thereafter was not continued and came to be disengaged on 30.06.2000 by appointed Administrator of the respondent-Corporation. 6.1 It is submitted that no juniors to the petitioner have been employed in the department and office of the Municipal Secretary of the respondent-Corporation. 7. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that the petitioner was taken in service by the respondent-Corporation on 08.09.1995 as a daily wager against the post of cleaner, which was permanent post. 7. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that the petitioner was taken in service by the respondent-Corporation on 08.09.1995 as a daily wager against the post of cleaner, which was permanent post. Thereafter, vide various orders, he was continued in service till June 2000. The petitioner was appointed against vacant and sanctioned post of car cleaner in 1995. As per the Corporation’s own policy, after completion of 5 years and 900 days, daily wagers are to be regularized in the services. 8. In the impugned order dated 28.02.2019, it has been recorded that petition was filed in the High Court being SCA No. 14014 of 2013, wherein judgment was passed by this Court on 29.11.2018 and it was ordered that a reasoned order be passed after verification of entire documents and considering the orders of the Labour Court, the High Court as well as orders passed with regard to other employees who have been appointed after him and keeping in view the policy of Corporation. The above order dated 12.12.2018 has been received from the Legal Department. Thereafter, detailed verification of the records of the petitioner was carried out. 9. Earlier, a policy was framed by the Corporation to regularize the employees of daily wages as permanent employees, wherein if period of service is more than or equal to 5 years then total present days of that tenure are divided with 180 and if the reminder is more than or equal to 5 number then such daily wagers were given the benefit of that policy. This policy is known as “the Policy of 5 years/900 days.” Thereafter, various petitions were filed before the High Court by different daily wagers of the Corporation. All these petitions were tagged with SCA No. 5019 of 2001 and a common oral order was passed by the High Court on 27.12.2001, which was complied by the AMC. This policy is known as “the Policy of 5 years/900 days.” Thereafter, various petitions were filed before the High Court by different daily wagers of the Corporation. All these petitions were tagged with SCA No. 5019 of 2001 and a common oral order was passed by the High Court on 27.12.2001, which was complied by the AMC. According to it, those Class-IV daily wagers who have completed 5 years and 900 days, they are allowed the work as per Section-wise Seniority List and an order was passed to take the steps to discharge them as per the principle of “Last Come First Go.” Looking to the Policy of AMC, order of the Court and Resolution No. 447 dated 13.08.2004 of the Standing Committee and the appointment orders of the other employees which were taken for comparison, the benefit of the Policy of AMC was given to those employees who have completed continuous service of 5 years and 900 days without break. 10. It is pertinent to reproduce various orders passed by this Court in case of the very petitioner in different petitions. In SCA Nos. 6404 and 6405 of 2000, this Court has observed as under: “2. The present petitions are filed for the relief that the action of the respondent-authorities giving artificial break to the services of the petitioners be declared as discriminatory and as unfair labour practice and the respondents be directed not to give artificial break and to absorb the petitioners as regular employees as they have completed 900 days service on completion of five years of their service with the respondent-corporation in view of the policy of the Corporation. 7. In the result, the present petitions are allowed. The respondent-corporation is directed to scrutinize the record of both the petitioners and to regularize them after ascertaining the factum regarding their having put in five years of service with more than 900 days of working with the respondent-corporation. It is also directed that in case the petitioners are found to be eligible for regularisation, they should be given their due seniority and consequential benefits. Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent-corporation, submitted that the said process is likely to take some time and therefore he requested that the Corporation should be given two months' time to complete the said exercise. Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent-corporation, submitted that the said process is likely to take some time and therefore he requested that the Corporation should be given two months' time to complete the said exercise. He also submitted that even after having found that the petitioners are eligible for regularisation, the same may take some more time and therefore the Corporation be given liberty to regularize the services of the petitioners in due course as per the policy of the Respondent-Corporation. The request of Mr Patel is reasonable. The Corporation is directed to complete the exercise of ascertaining the factum whether the petitioners have put in five years of service with more than 900 days of working with the respondent-corporation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Corporation is also directed to regularize the service of the petitioners in due course as per the policy of the Corporation. The petitions are accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute.” 10.1 In SCA No. 13957 of 2013 and allied matters, this Court in common oral order dated 15.06.2018 held as under: “2. In light of the facts and circumstances emerging from the material on record, this Court feels that the respondent-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation covered within Article 12 of the Constitution of India being instrumentality of the State is expected to act in all fairness and take just decision considering the policy decision of the respondent-Corporation referred hereinabove and do justice with the poor petitioners. 3. In view of the above discussions, by keeping these petitions pending, the respondent-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is directed to consider the cases of the petitioners sympathetically in accordance with the policy referred hereinabove and other material such as the office orders collectively placed on Page-318 by the petitioners and also considering the fact that the petitioners have completed 1440 days which is admittedly more than 900 days in 5 years of service. The respondent-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation shall consider the cases of the petitioners sympathetically and positively on or before 31.07.2018. The respondent-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation shall consider the cases of the petitioners sympathetically and positively on or before 31.07.2018. Outcome of such consideration shall be placed before this Court on 02.08.2018.” 10.2 While finally disposing of the aforesaid petition by order dated 29.11.2018, this Court held as under: “6.4 This is more in view of the fact that there is a specific direction issued in an order dated 15.06.2018 particularly in view of Para-3 wherein at one point of time, Hon'ble Court has mentioned that completion of days by the petitioner is beyond 1440 which is an admitted position. The Court during the pendency has directed to reconsider the case. Now, if this be the direction, on the basis of admitted plea, the order which has been passed on 27.07.2018 reflects that it is merely reproduction of earlier decision. The observations made by the Court in order dated 15.06.2018, more particularly in Para-3, read as under: “3. In view of the above discussions, by keeping these petitions pending, the respondent – Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is directed to consider the cases of the petitioners sympathetically in accordance with the policy referred hereinabove and other material such as the office orders collectively placed on Page-318 by the petitioners and also considering the fact that the petitioners have completed 1440 days which is admittedly more than 900 days in 5 years of service. The respondent-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation shall consider the cases of the petitioners sympathetically and positively on or before 31.07.2018. Outcome of such consideration shall be placed before this Court on 02.08.2018.” 7. In view of the aforesaid situation and bare reading of the impugned order dated 27.07.2018 which is a grievance by the petitioners has reflected a non-application of mind and also appears that observations of the Court contained in Para-3 have not been properly observed. 8. Originally, the Court was of the view that a person who has already discontinued has no vested right for regularization in view of consistent propositions but the very fact that on earlier occasion in similar case, a direction is issued as mentioned in Para-15 that even the cases of terminated employees, the authority is expected to reconsider. 8. Originally, the Court was of the view that a person who has already discontinued has no vested right for regularization in view of consistent propositions but the very fact that on earlier occasion in similar case, a direction is issued as mentioned in Para-15 that even the cases of terminated employees, the authority is expected to reconsider. There is yet another grievance which has been voiced out that persons who have not completed requisite period have been allowed to complete the deficit period and then they have been regularized, the authority appears to have not applied its mind to that grievance which has been voiced out. The Court on earlier occasion has specifically mentioned a reference with regard to Page-318 and the fact of admitted completion of more than 1440 days. It appears that the authority appears to have not acted in spirit of the direction issued by the Court to reconsider. As a result of this, the Court is of the opinion that while allowing the petitions in part, the respondent authorities be directed to reconsider the case of petitioners in aforesaid factual details and shall pass a reasoned order. Hence, the Court deems it proper to dispose of the present petitions by issuing following directions and clarifications which would meet the end of justice in considered opinion of the Court. 8.1 The impugned action and consequential order of the respondent authority in not considering the case of the petitioners is quashed and set aside and consequently the respondent authority is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners and shall pass a reasoned order after thorough examination of the relevant documents, the record with regard to plea of the petitioner about completion of days and also shall consider the grievance about other persons who have been given favourable treatment. 8.2 The respondent Corporation is directed to undertake this exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order and shall pass a reasoned order as reiterated.” 11. Annexure-B is the document dated 03.04.1999 being resolution No. 9 of the Municipal Secretary. This document indicates that by Admin. No. 1693 dated 19.03.1995, one post of cleaner is sanctioned and the petitioner is appointed on it. The petitioner has continued since then and document at Annexure-C would indicate the number of days the petitioner has worked between 1995-96 to 1998-99. This document indicates that by Admin. No. 1693 dated 19.03.1995, one post of cleaner is sanctioned and the petitioner is appointed on it. The petitioner has continued since then and document at Annexure-C would indicate the number of days the petitioner has worked between 1995-96 to 1998-99. Therefore, treating the years of employment, being 1995 to be the 1st year, the alleged termination on 30.06.2000 would indicate that the service of the petitioner was for 5 years and that the petitioners had worked for 949 days and 922 days (petitioner of SCA No. 7675 of 2019). Therefore, scheme of 5 years/900 days will come into operation and would apply. 12. The issue for consideration is the policy framed by the Corporation for absorption of daily wagers who have completed five years and 900 days popularly known as “five years/900 days policy.” It is the submission of learned advocate for the Corporation that as per the policy, the case of an individual daily wager will be considered after he completes five years of service and has worked for 900 days, and as in the case of the petitioners, though the petitioners may have completed more than 900 days, still they have not completed five years and therefore, the policy can be applied to an individual daily wager only upon his completion of period of five years. 13. In the opinion of the Court, the twin condition of five years and 900 days is qualified by the requirement of arithmetical formula which requires number of days for which the petitioners have rendered service is to be divided by 180 days and if the answer to the arithmetical formula is five or more, then such daily wager is considered eligible for absorption. The Court requires to closely look at this particular clause where the requirement is for completion of five years and 900 days. In the opinion of the Court, if that was the intention of the policy that applicability of this policy is only upon completion of five years, then in that case, there was no requirement of the arithmetical formula. In the opinion of the Court, the requirement of matching with the arithmetical formula is for the reason of tiding over the small difficulties where the daily wager may not have completed fully five years, but has completed more than 900 days. In the opinion of the Court, the requirement of matching with the arithmetical formula is for the reason of tiding over the small difficulties where the daily wager may not have completed fully five years, but has completed more than 900 days. It is observed that from the period 1983 till 1999, time and again five years/900 days’ policy has been re-looked by the Corporation and have been further clarified, but all throughout the Corporation has continued with the requirement of complying with the arithmetical formula. It is the case of petitioners that they entered into service in the year 1999 and continued to work till the year 2000 and it was in the month of July/September 2000 that the petitioners’ services were terminated. Also, the petitioners therefore, had commenced the service into the fifth year, but were not allowed to complete five years period. It is precisely for such situation that the Corporation is required to apply arithmetical formula. The logic behind including arithmetical formula is to extend the benefit of the policy to as many people as possible by keeping focus on the number of days that an individual daily wager has worked with the Corporation in continuous manner. 14. During the course of arguments, a feeble attempt was made to avoid reinstatement on the ground of post of Class-IV cleaner no more existing in the establishment. However, the number of vehicles have indeed increased. Moreover, both the petitioners have given their respective undertakings to this Court, which may be filed and ordered to be taken on record, whereby the petitioners have expressed willingness to work on any post and do the work assigned to them. 15. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 28.02.2019 in both these petitions are ordered to be quashed and set aside. The Court holds that the petitioners have completed required service and are entitled to the benefits of 5 years/900 days scheme and therefore, the Court orders reinstatement of the petitioners with the respondent-Corporation on Class-IV post with effect from the date of they completed 5 years/900 days as per the formula of the scheme. 16. It is also held that the petitioners may be placed at appropriate serial numbers in the list of Class-IV employees and be treated at par with other Class-IV employees regularized as per 5 years/900 days scheme. 16. It is also held that the petitioners may be placed at appropriate serial numbers in the list of Class-IV employees and be treated at par with other Class-IV employees regularized as per 5 years/900 days scheme. However, the petitioners are not entitled to any back wages on the principle of “No work No pay.” 17. The petitions stand allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.