ORDER : This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider their case for regularization on the basis of recommendation of the department and the scrutiny committee. 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that petitioner Pramod Mishra was appointed on the post of Time Keeper on daily wages on 1.10.1993 and was removed from service on 25. 6.1997 by the Executive Engineer without affording any opportunity of hearing and without assigning any reason. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Labour Court and pursuant to the order dated 26.8.1998 of the Labour Court (Annexure P/5), he was appointed against the vacant post and thereafter, the Scrutiny Committee also recommended for his regularization. Since he had completed 240 days in service, he was entitled to be considered for regularization. The appeal preferred before the Industrial Court by the department was dismissed vide order dated 19.4.2005 (Annexure P/6). Petitioner Dilip Kumar Supkar was appointed as a daily wager against the vacant sanctioned post vide order dated 1.10.1990 and was retrenched by the department, which was challenged by him before the Labour Court. Vide order dated 22.7.1998 the Labour Court allowed the application of the petitioner and held him entitled for reinstatement vide Annexure P/7. The appeal preferred by the department was dismissed by the Industrial Court vide order dated 19.4.2005 (Annexure P/8). Though he was reinstated pursuant to the order of the Labour Court, but subsequently he was removed from service in April, 2000. So far as petitioner Chandra Pratap Tiwari is concerned, he was also appointed on the post of Sub-Engineer on 1.6.1993 and subsequently by order dated 16.11.1995 his services were terminated without any reason, which was challenged before the Labour Court. Vide order dated 23.5.1996 the Labour Court allowed the application of the petitioner and directed for his reinstatement. However, the appeal preferred by the department against the said order was allowed in part by the Industrial Court vide order dated 3.4.1999 whereby while upholding the order of reinstatement, the order of back wages was modified and it was directed that the petitioner is entitled for 50% back wages only vide Annexure P/9. However, the appeal preferred by the department against the said order was allowed in part by the Industrial Court vide order dated 3.4.1999 whereby while upholding the order of reinstatement, the order of back wages was modified and it was directed that the petitioner is entitled for 50% back wages only vide Annexure P/9. As regards the petitioner Ratibhan Kushwaha, he was also appointed as a daily wager in the department on the post of Time Keeper on 1.12.1993 and subsequently, was removed from service, which was challenged before the Labour Court. Vide order dated 26.11.1998 (Annexure P/10) the Labour Court allowed the application of the petitioner and directed for his reinstatement. 3. All the four petitioners were reinstated in service but subsequently they were removed whereas they were entitled for regularization. The Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State Government also examined the cases of the petitioners for regularization and recommended for the same vide Annexure P/12. The department also sent the matter to the State Government but thereafter no order was passed by the State Government. Though the petitioners made several representations to the department for redressal of their grievance but of no avail. It is pertinent to mention here that one Sudhir Kumar Rana was appointed in the department as Stenographer/Typist and his case was considered and recommended for regularization but he was not regularized. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition i.e. WPS No.765/2014 before this Court which was disposed of with liberty to him to file a representation before the respondent authorities in this regard. Subsequent to the representation filed by him, he was regularized. He was also out of the job from 2000 to 2007. The case of the present petitioners is identical to that of Sudhir Kumar Rana and therefore, action of the respondent authorities in the matter of the petitioners is per se arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. Hence this petition for the following reliefs : “1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization on the basis of the recommendations of the department and scrutiny committee and they may further be directed to take a final decision in the matter within a stipulated period of 3 months. 2. 2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the regularization of the petitioners. 3. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which is deem fit and proper.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action on the part of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. The case of the petitioners was placed before the Scrutiny Committee and the recommendations were made for their regularization by the scrutiny committee but no decision was taken on the basis of the said recommendation. The orders passed by the Labour Court have attained finality and therefore, the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services. It is submitted that the department had also considered the case of the petitioners for regularization but no final order was passed. The case of similarly situated employees was considered and they were regularized but the petitioners were denied regularization. Thus, action of the respondent authorities is discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence the petitioners are entitled for the relief claimed by them. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in the matters of Tukaram Vs. State of CG and others, 2017 LawSuit (Chh) 649; Radhe Lal Vs. State of CG and others, 2019 LawSuit (Chh) 24; and Uttara Bai and others Vs. State of CG and others, 2022 LawSuit (Chh) 866. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that the petitioners were engaged as daily wagers and doing the work of Time Keeper, Typist and Overseer and their services were terminated in the year 2000. Thereafter, they were not in service. The State Government has taken a policy decision to regularize the services of daily wagers and the Department of General Administration has also issued instruction on 5.3.2008 for regularization of services of daily wagers vide Annexure R/1. A bare perusal of the said instructions would reveal that only those daily wagers who fulfill the minimum qualification or requirement are entitled for regularization. As per sub-clause (III) of Clause 2 of the instructions dated 5.3.2008, only those daily wagers and ad hoc employees who continued to work till 31.12.1997 are entitled for regularization. A bare perusal of the said instructions would reveal that only those daily wagers who fulfill the minimum qualification or requirement are entitled for regularization. As per sub-clause (III) of Clause 2 of the instructions dated 5.3.2008, only those daily wagers and ad hoc employees who continued to work till 31.12.1997 are entitled for regularization. It is submitted that a regular post in government employment has to be filled up purely and strictly in accordance with the rules governing the field. An employee engaged on daily wage basis cannot claim to be made a permanent employee. A decision for regularization of such employees defeats the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners were appointed on temporary basis and their engagement was not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedures prescribed. Even the petitioners have not filed the advertisement calling for applications, the appointment orders issues in their favour etc. to show that they were appointed after following the procedure of law. Thus, their appointment would not fall in the category of irregular appointment entitling them for regularization in terms of the circular dated 5.3.2008. The petitioners have an alternative remedy for seeking regularization before the Labour Court by proving their continuation in service but they have directly filed the instant writ petition before this Court and therefore, on this ground alone the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. It is next argued that the petitioners have made allegation of discrimination in the petition on the ground that one similarly situated employee namely Sudhir Kumar Rana working in the department was regularized but the petitioners were denied the same treatment. However, the petitioners have not made the said person as a party respondent in this petition and therefore, on this ground alone, this petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioners have got no locus standi to challenge the order of regularization of other similarly situated daily wagers. This petition is without any substance and as such, liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioners were engaged as daily wagers and were doing the job of Time Keeper, Typist and Overseer in the respondent department. This petition is without any substance and as such, liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioners were engaged as daily wagers and were doing the job of Time Keeper, Typist and Overseer in the respondent department. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners filed petitions before the concerned Labour Court against their removal from service and their petitions were allowed. 9. According to the respondents, the petitioners are not entitled for regularization as per circular dated 5.3.2008 (Annexure R/1). This Court in the matter of Tukaram (supra) observed in para 24 of its order as under: “24. Once when we reach to the conclusion that the implication of the order of dismissal, removal or termination being set aside, it has to be construed as, the workers would be put in the same position at which they were, but for the illegal dismissal, removal or termination order. If this analogy is applied to the facts of the present cases then all the workmen before this Court would squarely fall within the ambit of the category of workers who would be eligible for regularization in terms of the circular dated 5.3.2008.” Further, in the case of Radhe Lal (supra), this Court observed in paras 6 & 7 of its order as under: “6. What is also relevant is that the award of the Labour Court dated 09.12.2009 has not been challenged by the respondents and in due course, the same has attained its finality. The award of the Labour Court has also been complied with in as much as the petitioner has been reinstated in service on 06.04.2010 and he continues to work with the department since then. Thus, the petitioner in accordance with the findings of the Labour Court has to be presumed to be in continuous employment right from 1991 onwards. 7. The said view stands fortified by the judgment of this Court in the case of “Tukaram V. State of Chhattisgarh” WPS No.1703/2015, decided on 16.05.2017. Once when there is a categorical finding of the Labour Court, the authorities in the department cannot, unless the award is set-aside, sit over the finding of the Labour Court and take a different view. The said view stands fortified by the judgment of this Court in the case of “Tukaram V. State of Chhattisgarh” WPS No.1703/2015, decided on 16.05.2017. Once when there is a categorical finding of the Labour Court, the authorities in the department cannot, unless the award is set-aside, sit over the finding of the Labour Court and take a different view. Once when there is an order of holding the petitioner to be in continuous employment from 1991 onwards, the authorities have to presume the fact that the petitioner is in continuous employment from 1991 onward. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the finding of the authority while rejecting the claim for regularization of the petitioner to be bad in law.” In the matter of Uttara Bai (supra), this Court while dealing with the identical issue, allowed the writ petition and observed in para 9 of its order as under: “9. Considering the similar facts and circumstances of the case & in view of the order dated 10.02.2011 passed in WP(S) No.7450/2010 by Coordinate Bench of this Court, this Court direct the respondent authorities to scrutinize case of each and every individual as per memo dated 05.03.2008 and in the light of well settled principles of law, as aforestated.” 10. Thus, in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid decisions of this Court and the manner in which the petitioners were removed from services, the respondent authorities are directed to scrutinize the cases of the petitioners afresh in light of circular dated 5.3.2008 and the well settled principles of law referred to in the above-cited decisions of this Court and decide the claim of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. The writ petition thus stands allowed to the above extent.