CWP(T) No. 4477/2008 (OA 1423/97) 21.4.2009 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, vice Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General and Mr. R.S. Thakur, Assistant Advocate General for respondent No. 1. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Keeping in view the reply filed by the respondents it is evident that all benefits have been conferred upon the petitioners. The State Government vide letter dated 17.7.1995 (Annexure R-1) took a decision of allowing the revised rates of wages w.e.f. 1.4.1995. Admittedly the petitioners stand regularised after a period of 10 years of their service. The respondent/Corporation has explained in its reply that the benefits of the decision of the policy/judgment of the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316 is being done in a phased manner by creating desirable posts in the Corporation and after regularisation the daily wagers are being placed in lowest scale as per their time scale. It is not the petitioners’ case that persons junior to them were regularised prior to their regularisation. It is also not their case that posts were lying vacant and the respondents deliberately/malafidely delayed in regularising the petitioners on the said posts. Respondent/Corporation does not have any -2- category of work charged employees in its establishment. Hence the relief prayed for by the petitioners cannot be allowed. The present petition is disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 21, 2009 (PK)