Aparesh Kumar Singh,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner seeks review of the order dated 18th May, 2015 passed in W.P.(S) No.6712 of 2013 which reads as under:- No one appears on behalf of petitioner. Counsel for respondents is present. Writ petitioner has prayed for regularisation of his service on the vacant post of Filter Khalasi as he was appointed in Work Charge Establishment vide office order bearing Memo no. 240 dated 31st March, 1995 issued by Regional Chief Engineer, Annexure-1. According to him, he has represented before respondents, but no decision has been taken on their part in respect of his claim for regularization, though he has been working as daily wage employee. It appears from representation of petitioner at Annexure-5, that the petitioner had been engaged for certain periods in between 1986-1987 and then between 1991-1995 and thereafter by the order at Annexure-A he was taken in Work Charge Establishment on the post of Filter Khalasi where he remained till 15th March, 2000. When his services were disengaged, he has requested for re-engagement in December, 2008, but he has not been taken back in service. He has made a request citing through certain judgments rendered in the case of one or the other persons for taking him in regular establishment. The aforesaid state of facts however show petitioner's service has not been continuous under the respondents and since 15th March, 2000, he is not working under the respondents. In view of the aforesaid fact, no writ or direction can be issued for taking the petitioner in regular establishment. However, it is left open to petitioner to pursue his representation before the concerned respondent, in accordance with law and any scheme or rule for regularisation that has been framed by the State Government. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the said date when the order was passed relevant facts stated in the writ petition at paragraph-11 that the petitioner has been working on daily wages since the year 2007, could not be brought to the notice of this Court. The observation recorded in the impugned order on the basis of representation of the petitioner at Annexure-5 of the writ petition that he has not been taken back in service, would otherwise prejudice his case, as there are no denials in the counter affidavit about the assertion made in paragraph-11. It is submitted that if the petitioner is able to show his engagement for a continuous length of time for the purposes of making claim for regularisation duly supported with documents before the concerned competent authority under the respondents, these observations otherwise may come in his way.;