Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15668 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5188 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Mishra,Ajeya Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State. 2. The petitioner by way of this petition has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 03.06.2023 contained in ANNEXURE - 1 to the writ petition; (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus the respondents not to give effect impugned order dated 03.06.2023 contained in ANNEXURE - 1 to the writ petition; (iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner including arrears for the period from 01.01.2019 onwards; (iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services and payment of salary at least at the minimum in the pay scale for the post in question and decide is representation; (v) to issue such other writ, order or direction as may be deemed just and proper; and; (vi) to allow this writ petition with substantial costs to the petitioner." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier Writ Petition No.25538 of 2020, Ajay Kumar vs. State of U.P. was filed by the petitioner. The same was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to consider and decide his representation. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Apprenticeship Trainee under one year's Apprenticeship Training. He further submits that the petitioner worked w.e.f. 1.1.2018 to 31.12.2018 as Apprenticeship Trainee. After that he has continued as section Mistri in district Sitapur under Executive Engineer Nalkoopkhand IInd Sitapur. The petitioner has been paid his remunerations for a period of one year i.e. w.e.f. 1.1.2018 to 31.12.2018, however, although, he has worked till 2023 he has not paid a single penny. He prays for payment of minimum pay scale during the period he has worked. 4. Learned Standing counsel has opposed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner Ajay Kumar, ITI Trainee was appointed as apprenticeship trainee under the Apprentice Act, 1961 in pursuance of the directions issued vide directions issued vide letter dated 18.10.2017 of the Chief Engineer, Mechanical Establishment E-12, vide office memorandum dated 23.12.2017 and was appointed for one year apprenticeship training in Fitter trade on fixed honorarium. The apprenticeship training of the petitioner started from 1.1.2018 and ended on 31.12.2018 and for that period honorarium of Rs.59,268/- has been paid to the petitioner. He was not a regular employee. After one year of training he did not worked. He further submits that the petitioner was never engaged by the department he has denied the contention of the petitioner that he has worked till 2023. The letters dated 4.7.2019, 14.4.2020, 13.6.2020 and 11.4.2020 as contained in Annexure-13 to the writ petition collectively are forged and fabricated in order to mislead the Court, thus, entire case of the petitioner has been denied except to the fact that he worked as Apprenticeship Trainee w.e.f. 1.1.2018 to 31.12.2018. 5. Perused the record. 6. It is not disputed between the parties that the petitioner has worked w.e.f. 1.1.2018 to 31.12.2018. It is also not disputed that for this period the petitioner has been paid honorarium by the State. 7. So far as the contention of the petitioner that he worked till 2023, has been denied by the State and specific pleading in this regard has been made in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Counter Affidavit, thus, this fact has been disputed by the State. Writ Court cannot go into the disputed question of facts. 8. Perusal of the impugned order shows that for the last several years the selection in the regular establishment against the sanctioned vacant posts is being done through the subordinate Public Service Commission and so far as appointment of daily wager, work charge employees are concerned all appointments have been completely prohibited by the government since 1992-1994. 9. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench