CWP(T) No. 6855/2008 28.09.2010 Present: Mr. J. L. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. for the respondents/ State Petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s): i) That the salary of the applicants for the period 15.4.2000 till July 2000 on the basis of Class-IV employees which were being paid to them earlier may kindly be released in their favour along with interest @ 18% per annum. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the applicants as per their seniority; iii) That record of the case may kindly be called for, for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal. iv) Cost of the original application may kindly be awarded to the applicants and against the respondents. v) Such other or further order which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicants and against the respondents.” 2. In the reply the respondents have categorically stated as under:- “ “The Forest Department used to engage fire watches w.e.f. 16th April to 15th July every year previously as assistance for the protection of forest from fire, the applicants were also engaged in the same capacity in yester years. The fire watchers were paid on the minimum of pay scales plus usual allowances, but due to regularization of lot of Forest Workers, the forest department has assigned this work to regular Forest Workers. Since the applicants were engaged as fire watchers in yester years so they were given preference for engagement during the year 2000 on M/rolls basis @ Rs.51/- per day as per orders of superiors. This fact was very much in the knowledge of applicants and they have also received the wages @ Rs.51/- per day for the days they have worked during the year 2000.” 3. There is no rejoinder to the same. 4. From the reply it is evident that petitioners were engaged as seasonal workers. As such, it cannot be said that they have any right of regularization except in accordance with law. From the record, it could not be pointed out as to how any legally enforceable right of the petitioners stands violated. Consequently, petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. September 28, 2010 (rana)