R. A. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) SHRI Shitla Prasad Mishra, the sole respondent in this appeal, was engaged as a labourer on daily wage basis in 1982 by the Registry of this Court. It appears that he was involved in a criminal account of which he did not discharge his duties in this Court from 18-12-1990. As the respondent ceased to work from 18-12-1990 the Registrar of this Court by order dated 7-1-1991 disengaged him. After his acquittal in the criminal case he moved an application dated 7-9-1992 before the Registrar for his engagement as daily wager. According to the respondent no order was passed by this Court even though he moved another application in that connection. The respondent ultimately filed a writ petition before this Court, which has been allowed by the learned single Judge holding that the respondent is entitled to be re-instead in service because he was removed from service on account of his involvement in a criminal case. The learned Judge accordingly directed this Court to re-instate the petitioner-respondent in service with all consequential benefits. Learned Judge also issued direction for his confirmation in service with effect from the date on which persons, who were engaged as daily wager alongwith him in 1982, were confirmed. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Judge this Court has filed this appeal. While entertaining the appeal this Court also granted interim order staying the operation of the impugned judgment of the learned Judge. ( 2 ) WE have heard Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant and Sri R. N. Singh for the petitioner-respondent. ( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the writ petition filed by the respondent this Court did not file any counter-affidavit inspite of the orders passed to that effect by the learned Single Judge. But after the writ petition has been allowed by the learned Judge an affidavit containing necessary facts in support of the stay application, has been filed alongwith the Special appeal. Sri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, has raised preliminary objection to the effect that it is not open to the appellant to bring new facts on record of the appeal when the same were not placed before the leaned single Judge by filling counter-affidavit. Sri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, has raised preliminary objection to the effect that it is not open to the appellant to bring new facts on record of the appeal when the same were not placed before the leaned single Judge by filling counter-affidavit. Normally new facts are not to be placed on record of the appeal by any of the parties, except with the permission of the appellate court. It is, however, not necessary to go into this question as we have summoned the original record from the Registry and have examined the same in order to ascertain the correct position. ( 4 ) THIS appeal his to be allowed for three reasons, viz. (i) From perusal of the original record produced before us it appears that by order of the Registrar dated 7-1-1991 the respondent was disengaged with effect 18-12-1990 due to his absence from duty. Respondents application/representation for his engagement after acquittal in the criminal case, was rejected by honble the Chief Justice on 3-5-1994. Another application with similar prayer moved by the respondent on 9-5-1994 was also rejected by Honble the Chief Justice on 11-8-1994. The respondent did not challege any of the aforesaid three orders in his writ petition. He simply prayed for writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein to re-instate him as daily wager and continue to pay him his salary in future. As long as these orders stand no order for re-instatement of the respondent can be passed. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent has, in this connection, contended that the aforesaid orders were not communicated to the respondent by the Registry of this Court on account of which the same could not be challenged. It is not possible to accept the said contention. From perusal of paragraph 8 of his application dated 9-5-1994, copy of which has been filed as annexure-4 to the writ petition, it is clear that the respondent knew that his application for his engagement as daily wager after acquittal in criminal case, has been rejected. Paragraph 8 of the said application is reproduced below : "that the undersigned has reason to believe that had this injustice being caused to him, been brought to hour Lordships notice on judicial side, your Lordship would have certainly granted relief to the undersigned as in catena of decisions your Lordships have done so. Paragraph 8 of the said application is reproduced below : "that the undersigned has reason to believe that had this injustice being caused to him, been brought to hour Lordships notice on judicial side, your Lordship would have certainly granted relief to the undersigned as in catena of decisions your Lordships have done so. The decision cited in by the officer for rejection the application of undersigned has no application at all in the case of the undersigned as the undersigned has been given clean acquittal by the competent court of law. " (Emphesis supplied)In the report submitted to the Hon. The Chief Justice recommending rejection of the respondents application for his engagement as daily wager after his acquittal in criminal case, a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U. P. v. Class IV Employees association, 1993 (3)UPLBEC 208, has been cited. On the basis of the said report Honble the chief Justice rejected the respondents application for engagement as daily wager on 3-5-1994. It is this decision which has been referred to by the respondent in paragraph 8 of his application dated 9-5-1994. It is thus apparent that the respondent not only knew that his application for engagement as daily wager has been rejected, but he also knew the contents of the order by which his application was rejected. (ii) Respondents service was terminated not on account of his conviction in a criminal case. In fact he was never convicted in criminal case. Therefore, the question of his reinstatement in service after his acquittal in criminal case, does not arise. He was disengaged by the order dated 7-1-1991 of the Registrar on the basis of the office report mentioning therein that the respondent is neither attending his duties from 18-12-1990 nor has he sent any application. Accordingly a substitute in place of the respondent was claimed by the Section Officer in which the respondent was working. In that report it was also casually mentioned that reliably it has been learnt that the respondent is in jail on account of his involvement in some criminal case. But the reason for his disengagement was his absence from duty from 18-12-1990 and not his involvement in a criminal case. (iii) The respondent was merely a labourer engaged on daily wages basis. He was not holding any post in this Court. Reference in this Court. But the reason for his disengagement was his absence from duty from 18-12-1990 and not his involvement in a criminal case. (iii) The respondent was merely a labourer engaged on daily wages basis. He was not holding any post in this Court. Reference in this Court. Reference in this connection any be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Himanchal Pradesh v. Suresh Kumar Verma, JT 1996 (2) SC455, wherein it has been laid down that appointment on daily wages basis is not an appointment on a post. A person appointed to a post can be directed to be reinstated in service by the Court. If the order terminating his service, is set-aside but when the person does not hold any post the question of his reinstatement in service, does not arise. Learned Judge was, therefore, not justified to direct reinstatement of the respondent with all consequential benefits. Further direction of the learned Judge for confirmation is also unsustainable in law, for the same reason. That apart, the daily wages are engaged on daily wage basis. Their engagement is not for any fixed or indefinite period unless the order of engagement provides otherwise. If such as employee is disengaged the question of his reinstatement does not arise. ( 6 ) THE respondent has worked in this Court on daily wage basis for about eight years. He was disengaged by the order of the Registrar dated 7-1-1991 as could not attend his duties on account of his involvement in a criminal case, in which he ultimately acquitted. Had be continued to serve in all probabilities his service could have been regularized. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and as stated by Sri Rakesh Dwivedi learned counsel for the appellant, respondents for re-employment is liable to be considered sympathetically in accordance with law, if he applies for the same. ( 7 ) THIS appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is set-aside. The respondent will, however, have the liberty to apply afresh before this Court for his engagement/employment and if such an application is made the same should be considered sympathetically in accordance with law as expenditiously as possible. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.