Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Narendra Mohan learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

2. The petitioner contends that he is entitled for being regularised on the post of Driver and that the oral order of termination passed by the authority not to discharge duty w.e.f. 1.2.2002 is illegal. The writ petition was entertained and an interim order was passed on 24.5.2002 calling upon the respondents to either permit the petitioner to continue to work in the same capacity as he has been engaged earlier or to show cause.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed and it has been admitted that the petitioner had been prevented from discharging his duties w.e.f. 1.2.2002. However, in view of the interim order passed by this Court the Member Secretary, Board of Revenue passed an order dated 9.7.2002 for re-engaging the petitioner as he was continuing earlier and he has been paid allowances on daily wage basis.

4. Sri Narendra Mohan learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was engaged in the year 1996 and regular posts in the Department were created subsequently vide order dated 5.3.1997. Sri Mohan contends that in view of the Regularisa