Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) List has been revised. None appeared for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel and Sri Srikant Shukla, Advocate for the respondents are present. However, I have perused the record.
(2.) The petitioner has sought the following reliefs : "(i) issue a writ, order, rule or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to treat the services of the petitioner as permanent being regularised and not to interfere in the discharge of duty by the petitioner as clerk. (ii) issue a writ, order, rule or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to pass formal order regularising the ad hoc services of the petitioner. (iii) issue a writ, order, rule or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to pay the salary of the petitioner without any break alongwith arrears forthwith. (iv) issue any other writ, order, rule or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (v) award the cost of petition."
(3.) The entire claim of petitioner is that having worked for 240 days in a year he is entitled to be treated as regular in view of the law laid down by this Court in Jai Kishan v. U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd., 1989(1) UPLBEC 144.;