HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 53282 of 2002 Court No. - 34 (SN.50) HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anup Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: "(i) issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner in continuous service from the date of initial appointment i.e. 1.4.89 with all consequential benefits thereof and not to treat the petitioner the period 3.12.96 to 30.6.98 as constituting the petitioner in the continuity of his service. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction of a suit-able nature commanding the respondents to disburse to the petitioner the arrears of his salary from 3.12.96 to 30.6.98 within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble court. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to refix the salary of the petitioner after taking into account His continuous service from 1.4.89 and to make payments in accordance therewith Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Subhash Chandra, Ashok Khare, Ramesh Rai, Vikram D. Chauhan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ram Ratan .....Petitioner(s) Commissioner Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur And Others .....Respondent(s) including arrears arisen on account of such refixation within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble court." 3. The briefly stated facts of the case are, the petitioner herein was initially engaged on 16.12.1991 for a fixed period of 42 days on ad-hoc basis as Chaukidar in the Nazarat Section by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Later, he was further engaged for 145 days in the year 1992 and later on 14.05.1992 for 86 days. On 29.06.1992, the petitioner has claimed for regularization. Thereafter, on 24.07.1992, the petitioner was appointed on the regular pay-scale of 750-940 in the office of Tehsildar, Sadar as Chaukidar and it was made clear that his appointment is purely a temporary appointment, which can be terminated at any time without any prior notice. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.08.1992 passed by Tehsildar, Sadar, Maharajganj, in place of the petitioner, one Sri Chetman Sharma was appointed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner herein challenged the appointment of Chetman Sharma by filing the Writ Petition No. 33282 of 1992 which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 08.07.1993 and it was held that temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary employee and consequently, the respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to function as Chaukidar, Peon on temporary basis. 4. Later, pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 08.07.1993, the petitioner was again appointed as Chaukidar, temporarily vide order dated 29.07.1993. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.12.1996, following the due procedure as provided in U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975, the services of the petitioner were terminated after giving him one-month prior notice. The said order dated 03.12.1996 was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Zone, Gorakhpur by filing the appeal. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 06.06.1997, partially allowed the appeal of the petitioner and directed the respondents to grant the petitioner reappointment on the vacant post in the Nazarat Section. The said order dated 06.06.1997 has not yet been challenged by the petitioner in any other Forum, whereby reappointment was granted to the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner herein started making representation with regard to the payment of salary for the period for which the services of the petitioner were terminated. WRIA No. 53282 of 2002 2 5. From the perusal of the appellate order dated 06.06.1997, it is apparent that appeal of the petitioner was partially allowed and he was directed to be reappointed in the Nazarat Section as Chaukidar. Therefore, the continuity of service was apparently not granted by the Appellate Authority to the petitioner. Consequently, since the said order dated 06.06.1997 has never been challenged by the petitioner herein, he cannot claim the continuity in service or the payment of salary for the period during the termination of his services and his reappointment, which has apparently not allowed by the Appellate Authority. In such view of the matter, no relief as claimed by the petitioner can be granted to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this instant petition is dismissed. May 18, 2026 Shubham Arya WRIA No. 53282 of 2002 3 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad