Hon’ble Yashwant Varma, J.—By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has sought the issuance of a writ commanding the respondents to absorb him as a regular Seenchpal in the Irrigation Department of the State of U.P.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of this case are as follows. As per the petitioner’s own contention, he is said to have worked as a Seenchpal on daily wage basis between 1.7.1985 to 1.6.1986. He further averred in the writ petition that thereafter he worked from 2.6.1986 to 30.11.1986. In support of the above contention he relies upon the certificate purported to have been issued by the Assistant Engineer, Deokali Pump Nahar, Prakhand-II, Ghazipur. The writ petition is completely silent and there is no averment thereafter of the petitioner having discharged any work in the Department either on daily wage or as a Muster Roll employee.

3. What is submitted is this—the petitioner had completed 240 days of service in a year and as per the Government Order dated 24.9.1997, he was entitled to be absorbed in the Department. He is said to have thereafter made various representations between 1998 to 2008 and having received no response, filed the instant writ petition during the Summer Vacations of the Court in 2009.

4. The State has in its Counter-affidavit stated that the Certificates which are relied upon by the petitioner are clearly suspect inasmuch as they carry no dates, no dispatch numbers and copies thereof are not available in the records. It is further averred that between the period January, 1986 to April 1986, the petitioner worked for 117 days and between October, 1986 to December, 1986 for 67 days. According to the State-respondents the above work discharged by the petitioner is evident from a perusal of the Muster Roll for the said period and it is, therefore, evident that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days. The above facts which are stated categorically in Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Counter-affidavit have not been materially traversed by the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled for regularization in terms of the Government Order dated 24.9.1997. He submitted that he had completed 240 days in a calendar year and, therefore, was entitled to be absorbed in the Department. He further submitted that various persons who were working on daily-wage basis/Muster Roll had been absorbed in the Department and that therefore the action of the Department was violative of the guarantees conferred upon him by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that no relief is liable to be granted to the petitioner inasmuch as, as per his own case he had worked as a Muster Roll employee in 1986 and for the purposes of absorption made an application only in 1997-98. He further contends that mere filing of representations between 1997-2008 would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner and that the petition clearly represents a stale claim. He has further reiterated the contentions taken in Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Counter-affidavit to submit that even otherwise the petitioner being only a Muster Roll employee, who had not worked for 240 days, was not entitled to be regularized/absorbed by the Department concerned either under the Government Order or under any other provision of law.

7. It is relevant to note here that the learned counsel for the petitioner has rested his case only on the Government Order dated 24.9.1997 and has not drawn the attention of this Court to any other Scheme or Rule under which such Muster Roll employees were entitled to the relief of regularization/absorption.

8. Undisputedly, the petitioner appears to be a Muster Roll employee who had worked for an intermittent period in the year 1986. As per the statement made in the Counter-affidavit, the petitioner had worked for two spells of 117 days and 67 days. He, therefore, did not even meet the pre-con