By the Court.—This special appeal arises from a judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 16 April 2014 by which the State Government has been directed to take a decision in regard to the creation of a post of sweeper for the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Dhampur, Bijnor within two months, on a letter which was addressed by the Board of Revenue on 8 February 1994. The learned Single Judge has also directed that from 8 February 1994 till the creation of the post, the first respondent shall be allowed salary equivalent to the salary at the lowest grade of an employee on the post of sweeper in the State, in the office of the Collector. Arrears have been directed to be worked out within a period of three months and to be paid over to the first respondent. The first respondent has also been granted continuity of service.

2. The first respondent was engaged as a sweeper by the SDO when a new office was established in 1986. By a letter dated 8 February 1990, the SDO requested the District Magistrate to grant him permission to appoint the sweeper. On 2 March 1990, the District Magistrate issued directions for the appointment of the first respondent on a part-time basis as a sweeper on a consolidated salary of Rs. 76/- per month. The consolidated payment has since been revised from time to time. On 24 January 1992, the District Magistrate addressed a communication to the Board of Revenue for the creation of a permanent post of sweeper in the office of the SDO at Dhampur. Correspondence ensued between the Board of Revenue and the District Magistrate. By a letter dated 8 February 1994, the Secretary, Board of Revenue forwarded the papers to the State Government for the creation of a permanent post of sweeper in the office of the SDO at Dhampur.

3. The first respondent had moved the State Public Services Tribunal at Lucknow by filing a claim petition (Claim Petition No. 2135 of 1995, Mahipal Singh v. State of U.P. and others). The claim petition was dismissed by an order dated 13 February 1996 with the following observations:

“At the time of admission stage, from the record it is clear that he is part time employee and he has worked as such. He cannot show any rule under which a part time employee can be converted into a full time employee. It is also clear from record that no post has been created in which he might be considered as full time employee. It is also clear that the recommendation has been made by the lower authority of the Government to create the post so that the petitioner may be considered for appointment as full time employee on that post. No post has been created so far, the petitioner cannot be given a legal right to get a declaration as full time employee.

Thus for the above reasons the claim petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.”

4. Eventually, a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 10885 of 1996) was filed by the first respondent. In the said writ petition, the reliefs that were claimed were for a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the appellants to regularize the services of the first respondent as a class-IV employee in the post of sweeper; for the payment of arrears of salary since 1990 as payable to a regular class-IV employee; and restraining the appellants from interfering with the discharge of duties by the first respondent.

5. The learned Single Judge has, after noticing the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, held that the first respondent was continuously working as a part-time employee since his appointment on 2 March 1990 and had completed ten years of continuous service, the Board of Revenue had also recommended to the State Government for creation of a permanent post, since there is a permanent establishment of the SDO at Dhampur but the State had delayed in taking a decision thereon. In the meantime, the petition which was filed in March 1996 rema