ISRANI, J. - (1.) HEARD.
(2.) IT is submitted by Mr. G. D. Parwal, learned counsel, that the petitioner is working as Class IV employee in respondent No. 3, School. IT is further submitted that he performs his duty for whole day. IT is also submitted that he is working since 1986. However, he gets only Rs. 60/- per months. IT has been prayed that respondent No. 3 may be directed to give him regular pay scale of the post of Class IV employee. It is submitted by Mr. K. S. Sharma, learned counsel, that from Anx. R/l dated 21. 1. 91, Anx. R/2 dated 28. 8. 86 & Anr. R/3 dated 1. 7. 87, it is clear that the petitioner is working as part-time employee. From these orders, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed in place of one Gopali Bai, who was working as part- time employee in the school on Rs. 45/- per month. It is further submitted that the petitioner, who was already student of the school, on his application, was appointed as part-time employee on Rs. 60/- per month. It is also submitted that from Anx. R/12 to Anx. R. /20, photo stat copies of he Attendance Register, it is clear that the petitioner, on his own, added his name at the end of the Attendance Register and marked his attendance in the Attendance Register, which is otherwise meant for teachers. When this matter came to the knowledge of the school Authorities, he apologised vide Anx. 11 dated 9. 2. 91. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents on record. Evidently, there is a dispute whether the petitioner has worked as a part-time or a full-time employee. However, from the documentary evidence, Anx. R/l to Anx. R/4, it is clear that his name has been shown as part-time worker. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is not only working as water-man, but he also performs other work, like sweeping school etc. This has no relevance, since the only question, under consideration, is whether the petitioner is working as part-time or a full-time employee. This is a disputed question of fact. Therefore, such petitions cannot be entertained, under writ jurisdiction of this Court, The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. .;