28.4.2009 Present: Mr. L. N. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A. G. for the respondents CWP(T) No.3973/2008 (OA No.2124/96) Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “(i) that this application may kindly be allowed and the respondent may be directed that the status of the applicant which has been changed from draughtsman to Junior Draughtsman w.e.f. September, 1996 may kindly be ordered to be restored and the applicant may be allowed to draw Rs.109-80 paise i.e. the wages of draughtsman; (ii) that the respondents may kindly be directed to give all consequential benefits i.e. including the arrears on account of enhanced wages from time to time within the stipulated period along with the arrears of the amount which have already been deducted form the wages of the applicant; (iii) that the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the applicant as Draughtsman as he is working continuously since the year 1989.” Heard learned counsel for the parties. Record perused. It is undisputed fact that the post of Draughtsman is a promotional post to be filled-up only from the Junior Draughtsmans who have completed a minimum period of 12 years of service. The same in any event is evident from Annexure A-2. It is also undisputed fact that even though initially in the year 1989, petitioner was issued Must roll of a Draughtsman but, however, the respondents having realized their mistake, took remedial measures and accordingly revised the Must roll from Draughtsman to Junior Draughtsman. The appointment of the petitioner is not through the Employment Exchange as he was only engaged against a vacant regular post. How he continued to work as a draughtsman over a period of time is an issue which is not being gone into. The services of the Junior Draughtsman in any event are to be regularized in accordance with the relevant Rules/guidelines. No relief contrary to the Rules can be granted. The fact of the matter, however, is that not only the petitioner continued to work as Draughtsman but also received wages as such from 1989 upto September, 1996, when his wages were revised from Rs.109.80 paise to Rs.73.20 paise being that of a Junior Draughtsman. Admittedly, the petitioner had no role in fixation or disbursement of the said wages. He continued to work as Draughtsman and wages were disbursed to him due to the mistake on the part of the official of the respondents. Hence, keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 521, Purshotam Das & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 492 & Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana (1995 Supp 1 SCC 18, it is directed that the respondents shall not recover the difference in wages received by the petitioner from the year 1989 upto September, 1996. In this view of the matter, the present petition is disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. April 28, 2009 (rana)