SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Dr. R.G. Padia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prakash Padia for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner has sought the following the reliefs: "A. a writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent to permit the petitioner to continue as Class IV employee till such time regular selection is made by the respondent in case a permanent vacancy exists in respect of a Class IV post with respondent no. 3 or in case any person junior to the petitioner is being permitted to work as Class IV employee; B. a writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to pay salary to the petitioner month-bymonth as and when it falls due along with arrears of salary w.e.f. 18.6.1992; C. a writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pass appropriate orders in respect of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in a writ petition filed by the petitioner dated 31.08.1992; D. any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; E. award costs of the writ petition throughout to the petitioner. " It appears that the petitioner was engaged for a limited tenure from time to time and his last engagement was for the period of 07.05.1992 to 17.06.1992 and thereafter he was not required.
(3.) THE petitioner is alleging that the sub-treasury officer, bareya, district Ballia had made a recommendation for continuance of petitioner on 21.07.1992 but no order thereon was passed by Senior Treasure Officer. Thereafter the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. nil of 1992 and this Court disposed of the writ petition on 31.08.1992, passing the following order: "The petitioner was appointed as a peon on 14.8.1991 for a period of 42 days only. His services were extended from time to time. Thereafter a recommendation has been made by the respondent no. 3 on 21.7.1992 to respondent no. 2 for the extension of services. It appears that no order has been passed. The petitioner's case is that he has been working continuously but his salary has not been paid after 17th June, 92. The petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to regularize his service and pay the salary. This relief cannot be granted by this Court unless the respondent no. 2 passes a final order on the recommendation made by respondent no. 3. Accordingly we direct the respondent no. 2 to pass a suitable order on the recommendation made by the respondent no. 3 on 21.7.92 within a period of one month from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before him. With this observation, the writ petition is being disposed of finally. A certified copy of this order may be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner within a week on payment of usual charges. ;