YASHWANT VARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to sign in the attendance register of the office of the respondent No. 5, to pay him salary for the period since 15th December, 2011 till date and not interfere in service of the petitioner as daily wage without any written order. (ii) issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iii) award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner."
(3.) BRIEF facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition appear to be as follows. The petitioner contends that he was working on daily wages as a Class IV employee since the year 1987. It is stated that the petitioner was discharging the duties of a Chowkidar. The writ petition then refers to a judgment rendered by this Court in Special Appeal No. 653 of 1995, State of U.P. and Others Vs. Putti Lal, 1998 1 UPLBEC 313 to contend that this Court called upon the Forest Department to appoint a committee which may consider framing a scheme of regularisation/absorption of daily -wagers such as the petitioner. It is then submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court by its judgment and order dated 1.5.2001 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3634 of 1998 reiterated the directions issued by this Court and called upon the Forest Department to formulate a scheme within three months. It is further averred that it was pursuant to the aforesaid order that the Government of U.P. framed the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001. The writ petition further refers to the final orders passed by the Supreme Court in the special leave petition referred to above and certain other orders to contend that the services of the petitioner were liable to be regularised. The petition further states that the petitioner was permitted to sign the attendance register up to December, 2011 and that thereafter he has not been permitted to work. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted on the strength of the above mentioned facts that the petitioner is entitled not to be disturbed from discharging duties as a daily -wager and that he should be permitted to sign the attendance register.;