HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 5455 of 2005 Court No. - 25 HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers :- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to regularise the services of the petitioner according to Regularisation Rules. This Court while hearing this case passed following order on 24.08.2005 :- Notices on behalf of respondents have been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Let counter affidavit be filed with four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, within two weeks thereafter. List after expiry of said period along with Writ Petition No. 2205 (SS) of 2005. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is working on the post of Mali continuously with effect from 1st of August 1981 with the respondents, but he is being paid only daily wages. In paragraph-14 of the petition, it has been averred that employees similarly situate like the petitioner, are being paid minimum of pay scale whereas he is only being paid daily wages. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : P.C.Chauhan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C Balak Ram .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P.Through Its Secy Forest And 3 Ors .....Respondent(s) In view of the aforesaid, in case the persons referred in paragraph-14 are being paid minimum of pay scale, the petitioner shall also be paid the same scale. Subsequently, an order dated 07.03.2006 was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularisation under the U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group-D Posts Rules, 2001 and his claim for grant of minimum pay scale was also rejected. The aforesaid order was challenged by way of an amendment application, which was allowed vide order dated 24.09.2007 and the amendment was duly incorporated. Today, when the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition, even on revised call of the list. Learned Standing Counsel for the State is present. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. October 30, 2025 Ashish Dewal WRIA No. 5455 of 2005 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench