Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article of the Constitution of India, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been working on daily wags since the year 1982, in the Forest Department and are still continuing. The said statement has been made in para 3 of the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the services of the petitioner has not been regularised till date and is being treated as daily wager and in view of the Judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. v. Putti Lal reported in : 2002 (2) UPLBEC 1595, the petitioner is entitled to minimum pay scale which is being given to the other similarly situated employees. Petitioner has further placed reliance upon two judgements of this Court reported in : (2008) 1 UPLBEC 498 Janardan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr. and Sri Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in, (2008) 2 UPLBEC 1533.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of finally with the direction to respondent No. 3 i.e. Divisional Director, Social Forestry Division Lalitpur to consider the case of the petitioner. If the petitioner make a representation within a period of three weeks, the respondent No. 3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and will pass a detailed and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. It is also made clear that till the finalization of the representation of the petitioner regarding regularization, the petitioner shall be paid minimum pay scale as directed in the Putti Lal's case (Supra). With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
(3.) NO order as to costs.;