Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19370 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6764 of 2005 Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through The Secretary Revenue And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K.Dwivedi,Diwakar Nath Tiwari,Jai Prakash Yadav,Jitendra Kumar Pandey,Jyoti Rawat,R.N.Dwivedi,Ram Samujh Rawat Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel for the respondents. The petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to work. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to fresh appointment to the petitioners in the light of Annexure No.-4 which makes it clear, that the posts of the peons are still available in the department." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially engaged as a Peon in the year 1993, and thereafter, he continued to work for a period of 89 days. Although, no formal appointment letter was issued to him, his services were extended up the year 1999. It is further submitted that persons junior to the petitioner were appointed pursuant to interim orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 5898 (S/S) of 1999 and 5142 (S/S) of 1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to continue the work. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit, submits that the petitioner was engaged only for 89 days in compliance of the order dated 25.10.1993 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Kheri, and subsequently for 45 days pursuant to the order dated 01.06.1995, and again for 45 days pursuant to the order dated 15.01.1996. It is submitted that the petitioner’s engagement was purely for a limited period and specific purpose, and thereafter, he has not worked. The learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that the writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. Perused the record. From perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner was engaged only for short periods in the years 1993, 1995, and 1996. Admittedly, the petitioner has not worked after 28.02.1996. Therefore, he cannot claim any right to a fresh appointment. It has also been categorically denied by the learned Standing Counsel that any other similarly situated person has been allowed to continue working, or that the petitioner has been subjected to discrimination. In light of the aforesaid, it cannot be held that the action taken by the opposite parties of discontinuing the services of the petitioner is arbitrary or suffers from any legal infirmity. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 7.4.2025/R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench