- (1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. This special appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules has been filed against the judgment and order dated 09-08-2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 9a of 2003 (S/s), Govind Prasad Gairola Vs. State and others, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
(2.) A writ petition bearing No. 9a of 2003 (S/s) was filed before the learned Single Judge by the petitioner- Govind Prasad Gairola for the following reliefs i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to regularize the petitioner for the post of the Draught's man and also to pay him the difference of salary of Rs. 1,68,369. 80. ii. To issue any other appropriate writ order or direction which is deem fit and just in the circum stances of the case. iii. To allow the writ petition with - cost. The petitioner- Govind Prasad Gairola (now appellant in special appeal) was appointed as Draughtsman on 06-09-1985 on daily wages basis in Jal Nigam and continued working till 28-02-1987. The Executive Engineer of the Project Division of U. P. Jal Nigam vide his letter dated 28-01-1988 sought per mission from the higher authorities to appoint the petitioner as Draughtsman in the department. The petitioner also demanded salary for the post of Draughtsman against which he was working. Meanwhile, the petitioner was transferred from the Project Division to Ganga Pollution Control Unit, Haridwar on 01-03-1987 against the post of Work Agent but the work of Draughtsman was taken from the petitioner. The General Manager of the Project Division also sought permission from the Chief Engi neer to appoint the petitioner as Draughtsman and the Chief Engineer authorized the General Manager to hold the examination of the petitioner. The General Manager took the test of the petitioner and found him suitable for the post but the Chief Engineer refused the permission to appoint the petitioner as Draughtsman. The petitioner worked in the Nigam as a Work Agent but the work of Draughtsman was taken from the petitioner. The petitioner also made rep resentation on 15-11-1995 alleging therein that he is being paid the salary of daily wager while he is performing the duties of the Draughtsman. The peti tioner claimed the difference of salary of Rs. 1,68,369. 80 between Work Agent and Draughtsman. Feeling aggrieved by this, the petitioner had filed the writ pe tition before the Court for seeking regularization and dues of salary. The respondents filed counter af fidavit on behalf of the Jal Nigam and pleaded that the petitioner was ap pointed on muster roll on daily wages basis as such he cannot claim the sal ary of Draughtsman in regular establish ment. It is also pleaded in the counter affidavit that the petitioner never worked as Draughtsman in the establishment but he cleverly projected himself as a Draughtsman. It was further pleaded that there is no amount due as claimed by the petitioner.
(3.) AFTER hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the petition on 9th August, 2006 and held that the petitioner is not entitled for sal ary or regularization to the post of the Draughtsman. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present special appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Govind Prasad Gairola.;