HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 30569 of 2010 Court No. - 34 (Sl. No. 249.2) HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. None appears for the petitioner. Sri Pradeept Kumar Shahi, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State is present. 2. Instant petition has been filed seeking regularization of the petitioner on the post of Chaukidar and also a direction for grant of minimum pay scale to the petitioner. In the instant petition, petitioner has claimed that he is continuously working since 1998 on daily wage basis on the post of Plantation Chaukidar and has further made a statement that he was working on the date of filing of the instant petition as well i.e. 19.5.2010. 3. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State-respondent wherein it has been categorically stated that the petitioner was working from October, 2000 till June, 2009 with some gaps in service and so far as regularization of the petitioner is concerned, at the relevant time, when the petition was filed, only 'Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wager, Appointment on Group-D Posts Rules, 2001' (hereinafter referred to as 2001 Rules) were effective. Under the aforesaid Rules, a person to be eligible for regularization was required to be working since June, 1991 till September, 2001 continuously. 4. In such view of the matter, petitioner was not entitled for regularization, as claimed by the petitioner, in terms of 2001 Rules and since after June, 2009 petitioner has not worked. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the aforesaid counter affidavit. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manu Saxena Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Naresh .....Petitioner(s) Divisional Forest Officer Najibababd And Another .....Respondent(s) 5. In such view of the matter, the averments made in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was working since October, 2000 till June, 2009 is taken to be true and consequently, petitioner was not entitled for regularization under the 2001 Rules. Consequently, the prayer for regularization of the petitioner is misconceived and since petitioner was not working since June, 2009, there is no question of grant of minimum pay scale to the petitioner, as prayed in the instant petition. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition failed and is accordingly dismissed. 7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 8. Let this case be de-linked from bunch matters and shall not be shown in the cause list. May 12, 2026 n.u. WRIA No. 30569 of 2010 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- NASEEM UDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad