Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26336 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5000 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sankata Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary , Home Deptt. Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar,Dinesh Kumar Tripathi,Kalapanath Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. Notice to respondent No.4 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order. By means of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents to regularise services of the petitioner from his initial engagement, i.e. 2007 with a further direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as a regular employee from the date of initial appointment as per Regularisation Rules, 2016. A further prayer to direct respondents to decide representation dated 21.2.2025 has also been made. Learned counsel for the petitioner has staked his claim on the ground that the petitioner has been working for the last 18 years and is entitled to be regularised as per 2016 Regularisation Rules. He has relied on a judgment in Jaggo versus Union of India and others passed in Civil Appeal of 2024 arising out of SLP(C)No.5580 of 2024. Learned Standing Counsel has drawn attention of this court towards prayer No.1 made in the petition. It is submitted that according to prayer made by the petition, it is his own admission of the petitioner that he has been engaged since 2007. Learned standing counsel has also drawn attention of this court towards Rule 6 of U.P. Regularisation of persons working on daily wages or on work charge or on contract in government departments on group 'C and Group 'D' posts (Outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 (in short, 2016 Rules) and submits that a person in order to get benefit of these Rules has to show that he was engaged on or before December 31, 2001 and is still engaged or working as such on the date of the commencement of 2016 Rules. As per own admitted case of the petitioner, he was engaged since 2007 and therefore, 2016 Rules are not applicable in case of the petitioner. Having considered the submission, perused the 2016 Rules as also the pleadings made in para 10 of the petition, admittedly, the petitioner has been engaged in 2007 and therefore, in view of Rule 6 of 2016 Rules, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of said Rules for regualrisation as he was not engaged on or before 31.12.2001. The judgment referred to by the petitioner's counsel is not applicable in the present case as in that case most of the petitioners were engaged prior to 2001 and their services appear to have been terminated by the concerned authority. From the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 6.5.2025/kkb/ Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench