1. Heard Mr. Alok Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.05.2000 (Annexure No.-1 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioners representation to maintain his seniority amongst the junior engineers has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was appointed as a Daily Wage Works Supervisor, which is not equivalent to the Junior Engineer. Moreover the post of Junior Engineers comes within the purview of State Public Services Commission.

3. The brief facts as set out by the petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on 24.03.1983 in the Public Works Department under the World Bank Population Project Scheme. The petitioner possesses the qualification of diploma in Mechanical Engineer. After he was appointed on work charge post vide order dated 28.01.1984 on the basis of consolidated salary of Rs. 500/- per month, the appointment order was issued by the Deputy Director, 2nd India Population Project Construction Division-I, Mirzapur. On 16.01.1985 he was regularized in service by the Chief Engineer, Eastern Zone, Public Works Department, Varanasi thereafter vide order dated 28.02.1984, he was recommended to be appointed in the regular work charge establishment to work as Junior Engineer. On 22.1.1985 the petitioner was transferred from Mirzapur to Basti and he joined thereat on 23.01.1985. On 31.05.1986 he was terminated from service. Being aggrieved with which he filed a writ petition being writ petition No. 4287/1986 (Anil Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. & others). This Court quashed the order of termination, therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation for his absorption in the Public Works Department like others but the same was rejected vide Office Memorandum dated 15.02.1992. However, the State Government vide order dated 20.04.1992 directed the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department to absorb the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in the department. Vide order dated 28.04.1992 the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department issued direction to appoint the petitioner on the post of Work Supervisor on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs. 35/- per day. Being aggrieved with which the petitioner further made a representation before the higher authorities and further he preferred a writ petition for payment of equal pay for equal work being writ petition No. 2860(S/S) of 1995 (Anil Kumar Verma V. State of U.P. & others). This Court vide order dated 17.08.1995 issued direction to give him the benefit of orders dated 24.03.1993 and 30.08.1993 passed by this Court in another writ petition No. 27367 of 1991.

4. It is stated that thereafter the petitioner started getting salary of the post of Junior Engineer pursuant to the order of this Court passed in writ petition No. 2860(S/S) of 1995. The petitioner further moved an application for modification of order dated 17.08.1995 to allow him to work as Junior Engineer and pay him salary regularly but no order was passed on the said application. It is also stated that he was given revised pay scale of the post of Junior Engineer vide order dated 25.06.1998. However again on 30.09.1999, the opposite party No. 3 i.e. Superintendent of Works, Temporary Divisional Construction Unit (Electrical & Mechanical), Public Works Department, Lucknow issued direction to pay him salary of the post of Works Supervisor.

5. Being aggrieved with which the Union, the petitioner was a member of which, filed another writ petition being writ petition No. 5463(S/S) of 1999. This Court by means of interim order dated 15.10.1999 stayed the operation of order dated 30.09.1999, thereafter the State preferred a special appeal against the said order, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.1999. Again the Engineer-in-Chief issued direction not to pay him salary of the Junior Engineer then the petitioner and other 42 persons filed writ petition No. 497 (S/S) of 2000. This Court by means of interim order dated 28.01.2000 issued direction not to reduce their salary. Meanwhile the petitioners writ petition being writ petition No. 4287 (S/S) of 1986 preferred against the order of termination was finally disposed of by means of order dated 19.05.1999 with direction to the opposite party No. 2 i.e. the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Lucknow to decide the petitioners representation. The petitioner had claimed his regularization from the date of juniors as about 12 persons junior to him have been absorbed in the department on regular basis. The petitioner also filed contempt petition being Crl. Misc. Case No. 583 (C) of 2000 (Anil Kumar Verma v. Laxmi Chand & others). Ultimately the petitioners representation was decided by means of order dated 10.05.2000. His claim was rejected by means of order impugned.

6. On the basis of aforesaid factual backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was allowed to work as Junior Engineer and the State Government also recommended to appoint him as Junior Engineer, he is entitled for absorption on the post of Junior Engineer as well as to get salary as is admissible to the post in question.

7. In reply, the opposite parties have submitted that the petitioner was engaged in a project on daily wage basis as Work charge Employee under the World Bank Population Project Scheme as a Junior Engineer. So far as the appointment of the Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department is concerned that is made through the State Public Services Commission. The petitioners appointment in the regular work charge establishment made later on, is also not disputed but being the employee of work charge establishment, he cannot claim his absorption in the regular establishment. It is also stated that the service conditions of Junior Engineers of the Public Works Department are governed under the particular rules in which the Junior Engineers of the Public Works Department appointed as work charge establishment is not covered.

8. So far as the status of employee engaged in the World Bank Project is concerned, it is stated that that was not a project of Public Works Department itself but the Public Works Department shouldered responsibility to implement the project, therefore, the petitioner also cannot claim seniority amongst the Junior Engineers of the Public Works Department. So far as the petitioners claim for regularization under the U.P. Regularization of Ad hoc Appointment (on posts within the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner was not appointed on Ad hoc basis in the Public Works Department, therefore, he cannot claim the benefit of the aforesaid Rules.

9. The opposite parties have also submitted that the State Government vide order dated 17.02.2006 issued direction for regularization of 206 daily wagers pursuant to which the respondents issued order dated 06.09.2006 for regularization of the petitioner and other 205 daily wagers by giving the benefit of regular appointment to the petitioner w.e.f. 17.02.2006. It is further stated that before the petitioners regularization, the claim for payment of pension had come to an end on 01.04.2005, hence the petitioner is not entitled for any pensionary benefit since prior to the date of his regularization i.e. 17.02.2006. He was working as a daily wager/work charge employee and as per Rule 370 of Civil Services Rules, the work charge employees are not entitled for any pensionary benefits.

10. A bare perusal of the records shows that the petitioner was regularized in work charge establishment on 16.01.1985 and he worked as such till the date of regularization made on 17.06.2006 though the several incidents like his termination and the interference of this Court in the order of termination intervened but since ultimately the petitioner has been regularized in service in the year 2006, I am of the view that he is entitled to get other service benefits from the date of his regularization. Since the petitioners service, rendered as work charge establishment, cannot be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. I am also of the view that the petitioner has no right of pension.

11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.