Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28974 Court No. - 28 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 420 of 2004 Petitioner :- Shamshad Ahamd Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secy. Rural Engineering Service Lko. Counsel for Petitioner :- S.S.L.Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party no. 2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of judgment and order dated 21.07.1993 passed in writ petition no.8148 (S/S) of 1990 as well as to make payment of salary to the petitioner and also to regularise the services of the petitioner within a reasonable time. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was engaged in the year 1990 as Work Charge employee (Class IV post) on temporary basis against the permanent vacancy under the opposite party no.3 on consolidated pay. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner continued to work on the post for 14 years in the said Department. Learned counsel has further submitted that several writ petitions were filed by similarly situate persons and their writ petitions were allowed by this Court with a direction to the opposite parties to take back the petitioners of those writ petitions on duty and pay them the minimum scale of pay which was being drawn by other employees and quashed the order of termination. He has annexed the judgment passed in Writ Petition no.1773 (S/S) of 1990 contained as Annexure 2. He further submitted that the petitioner may be extended the benefit of the aforesaid judgment. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has taken the stand that the petitioner was engaged on some work by the District Development Officer, Varanasi who has no concern with the present Department i.e Rural Engineering Services, he was also not engaged on permanent post and he was paid wages on work basis. He further submitted that no interim order was passed and after such long lapse of time, the petitioner has to show his rights but at this juncture the petitioner cannot claim any right as his engagement was not made on substantive post therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Be that as it may. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits of the case, it is directed that the petitioner may make a fresh representation ventilating his grievance within two weeks from today and the same shall be considered and decided by the respondent no.3 in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order, say, within a period of six weeks thereafter. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 16.5.2025/Pks Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench