CWP(T) No. 10323 of 2008 20.7.2010 Present: Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General for the respondents/State. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 1. Quash the impugned order/action of the respondents dated 22.3.2003 whereby the respondents have regularised the service of the applicant against the post of Junior Draftsman w.e.f. 22.03.2003 instead of w.e.f. 01.04.1998, being arbitrary, malafide and illegal; 2. Direct the respondent to regularise the service of the applicant against the post of Junior Draftsman, w.e.f. 01.04.1998 with all the consequential benefits and arrears of back wages with interest on the arrears @ 18% p.a. from the due date till the date of realization; 3. Direct the respondents to produce all the relevant documents for perusal by this Hon’ble Tribunal; 4. Allow the cost of this OA; 5. Pass such other order or directions as deemed fit and proper in favour of the applicant. 2. In terms of office order dated 22.3.2003, petitioner was offered a temporary post of Junior Draftsman in the pay scale of Rs. 4020-6200. He is aggrieved that this appointment ought to have been w.e.f. 1.4.1998 and not 22.3.2003. The grievance eminates from the fact that similarly situated persons namely Sh. Surinder Pal, Sh. Salinder Kumar and Sh. Vikas Tomar were regularised on 1.4.1999. 3. The respondents in their reply have clarified that only such of those persons who were senior to petitioner were offered appointment as Junior Draftsman on temporary/permanent basis. This fact is not refuted. -2- 4. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties it cannot be said that any legally enforceable right of the petitioner stands violated. It cannot be said that petitioner is similarly situated to those persons who were regularised w.e.f. 1.4.1999. Nothing has been placed on record to show that petitioner was otherwise eligible for regularisation as a Junior Draftsman w.e.f. 1.4.1998 or 1.4.1999 or for that matter prior to 22.3.2003. In this background no case for interference is made out. The present petition devoid of any merit is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 20, 2010 (PK)