Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Lineman on 29th December, 1989 in the Nagar Palika, Kalpi, district Jalaun by the Chairman of the Nagar Palika but salary was not paid to him from February, 1991. He, therefore, filed the present petition for a direction upon the respondents to not only pay the salary but also to continue him in service and regularise his services on the post of Lineman.
(2.) The petitioner has placed on record the order dated 29th December, 1989 by which he was appointed as a substitute Lineman on temporary basis and the order dated 25th July, 1991 said to have been issued by the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika which mentions that the services of the petitioner had earlier been terminated in the absence of any sanction of the post but as the State Government had issued the Government Order dated 19th April, 1991 extending the sanction to the post of Lineman, the order for continuity in service was being issued. The petitioner by means of the supplementary affidavit has also brought on record the order dated 17th August, 1996 said to have been issued by the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika confirming the petitioner on the post of Lineman w.e.f. 17th August, 1996 on the basis of the order dated 13th August, 1996 passed by the Chairman of the Nagar Palika.
(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it has been categorically stated that the State Government had created a temporary post of Lineman in the Nagar Palika up to 28th February, 1991 and since this period was not extended, the petitioner was not permitted to work after the said date and salary was also not paid. It has also been categorically stated that the order dated 25th July, 1991 said to have been passed by the Executive Officer was not in the records of the Nagar Palika and the alleged Government Order dated 19th July, 1991 which was referred to in the order dated 25th July, 1991 was also not in the records of the Nagar Palika. In the supplementary counter affidavit, it has been stated that the order dated 17th August, 1996 was a forged and fictitious order as it also does not exist in the records of the Nagar Palika. In support of this contention that the said order dated 17th August, 1996 was a forged and fictitious order, communications dated 24th October, 2003 and 2nd January, 2006 filed by the petitioner before the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika have been placed on record to show that even till January, 2006 the petitioner was seeking regularisation of his services.;