S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition and other connected petitions have been filed for the relief of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners who are languishing in the department in the uncertainty of adhocism for years together. ( 2 ) ALL the petitions may be different in factual aspect but the subject matter of impugnment in this batch of the petition i. e. the order dated 22. 8. 2002 passed by the Chief Engineer, (Personal), U. P. Jal nigam, Lucknow is identical by ;which earlier order dated 12. 10. 2001 passed by managing Director was rescinded on the ground that the earlier order aforesaid granting minimum of the wages at par with regular employees militated against the mandate embodied in the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3634 of 1995 State of U. P. v. Putti Lal and by an incompetent authority. ( 3 ) THE factual matrix of the present case in writ petition no. 15617 of 2003 is that the petitioner entered the service on 1. 4. 1989 as Runner/chaukidar and in the course of time, he represented to the authorities on several dates seeking regularisation of his service in one of the vacant posts in the department. Ultimately, certain employees invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court in lucknow Bench and pursuant to the directions issued by the Lucknow Bench of this Court, minimum of pay scale to all muster roll employees was granted vide memorandum dated 12. 10. 2001. Subsequently, on the basis of decision of the Apex Court in Putti Lal, the aforestated office memorandum was rescinded and the muster roll employees were relegated to status quo ante. It is in this back ground that the petitioner has preferred the instant petition for relief of mandamus. ( 4 ) HEARD learned counsel and perused the materials on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner premised his argument by submitting that the impugned order thereby earlier order granting minimum of the wages admissible to a regular employee was rescinded without affording opportunity of hearing and the petitioners were entitled to hearing. It was submitted by the learned counsel that under the order dated 12. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner premised his argument by submitting that the impugned order thereby earlier order granting minimum of the wages admissible to a regular employee was rescinded without affording opportunity of hearing and the petitioners were entitled to hearing. It was submitted by the learned counsel that under the order dated 12. 10. 2001 issued by the Chief engineer (Personnel), Uttar Pradesh Jal nigam, Head Office, Lucknow petitioners were given minimum of the pay scale along with other allowance admissible to the regular employees with effect from 1. 10. 2001 and that this order was given effect to in respect of all the muster roll employees on the rolls of Jal Nigam since long. It was further submitted that the impugned order has the effect of affecting their salaries and as a consequence thereof their status and livelihood have also come to suffer and without opportunity of hearing on such order could be passed. It was also can vassed that the impugned order has its foundation in three grounds - (1) The judgment of Apex Court in State of U. P. versus Putti Lal. (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595 by which Apex court has held that before regularization no employee could be given minimum pay scale and as such the order dated 12. 10. 2001 was contrary to the terms of the Judgement of Apex Court (2) it has not been issued with prior approval of the state and the competent authority and (3) order dated 12. 10. 2001 has not been issued in accordance with law and submitted that none of the grounds cited in the impugned order were potent enough to warrant cancellation of earlier office order inasmuch as in State of U. P. versus putti Lal (supra) the Apex Court had directed to pay minimum of the pay scale to the employees who are working for a long time and are discharging similar functions as regular employees and further that the direction given by the office order dated 12. 10. 2001 to pay allowance in addition to the minimum of the pay scale received reinforcement from various other decisions of the Apex Court. It was lastly convassed that in order to effectuate the order dated 12. 10. 10. 2001 to pay allowance in addition to the minimum of the pay scale received reinforcement from various other decisions of the Apex Court. It was lastly convassed that in order to effectuate the order dated 12. 10. 2001 the competent authority had sanctioned various funds which was released by the government and it has no grounding in the fact to say that the order had not received approbation of the competent authority or the State government and as such the order dated 12. 10. 2001 lacked in validity and the impugned order is vitiated in law. ( 5 ) IN reply to the same Sri A. K. Misra, learned counsel for opposite parties relying upon counter affidavits filed in some of the writ petitions including writ petition no. 47316 of 2002 contended that the Jal Nigam was established by the State of Uttar Pradesh under section 3 of the U. P. Water supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Hie Act ). It was further contended that sections 8 and 89 of the act envisaged that the Nigam may appoint such employees as it may consider necessary provided the appointment of such employees shall specify their terms and conditions determined with the approval of the State government as a matter of policy and in case if any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the State government may issue a directions under sub section (1) the decision of the State government shall be final. He further contended that under the policy of the State of Uttar Pradesh, U. P. Jal Nigam framed a scheme to regularise its work charge employees who had completed the span of five years of service in unbroken continuity in. U. P. Jal nigam on 1. 4. 1985. The State government accepted this scheme and 2163 posts were further created. Subsequently, on 3. 12. 1988 2500 posts created to regularise services of daily wage/work charge employees who had completed five years of service in Jal nigam and the Board in the meeting dated 18. 11. 1989 created 5918 posts for regularization of daily wage/ muster roll/ work charge employees. Thus, total 10,581 posts were created by the U. P. Jal nigam for regularization of daily wage/muster roll/work charge employees who have completed five years of service until 31. 3. 1989. 11. 1989 created 5918 posts for regularization of daily wage/ muster roll/ work charge employees. Thus, total 10,581 posts were created by the U. P. Jal nigam for regularization of daily wage/muster roll/work charge employees who have completed five years of service until 31. 3. 1989. 9642 muster roll/work charge employees service were regularized. Subsequently those persons were also allowed revised pay scale subject to the condition that they fulfill requisite qualification. It has been pointed out that matter is still sub judice. He further contended that the provisions of notification dated 21. 12. 2001 providing regularization cannot be called in aid for applicability to U. P. Jal Nigam as this regularisation Rule is intended for application to the daily wages employees of the State Government and not the daily wage employees of U. P. Jal Nigam. The learned counsel further canvassed that the decision in State of U. P. versus Putti Lal (supra) relates to the workers of Forest department and orders passed relating to the Forest department cannot be imported for application on the ground of parity with the employees of U. P. Jal Nigam which is a separate and district entity different from the State government. He draw a distinction stating that petitioners have been harnessed to work on particular projects run under U. P. Jal Nigam in the work charge establishment and since wages are paid from the funds allocated for a particular project, it cannot be assumed that the work of work charge employee employed for a particular project is of permanent nature and consequently by reason of being a muter roll employee, they are not entitled to get salary at part with the regular employee of the Jal Nigam. Since some of the works allotted to the petitioners, proceeds the submission, include installation of the hand pump, management of drinking water in the pilot districts of U. P. from the u. P. Jal Nigam has now been assigned to the U. P. Gramin Paye Jal Mission (Jal nidhi) constituted by the State government. Similarly by government order dated 5. 1. 2002 work of water supply and sanitation mission has been taken over from Jal Nigam and has been entrusted to Swajal Pariyojana prabandhan Unit, U. P. . Similarly by government order dated 5. 1. 2002 work of water supply and sanitation mission has been taken over from Jal Nigam and has been entrusted to Swajal Pariyojana prabandhan Unit, U. P. . Theatre and work of installation of hand pumps in all the 70 districts of Uttar Pradesh was decentralized and entrusted to Gramin panchayats of the State and 10% work of installation of hand pumps under the government order dated 7. 1. 2002 has been entrusted to U. P. State Agro industrial State Corporation. It is in the back drop of the above submissions learned counsel for opposite Parties propounded that the petitioners are not entitled to be regularized. ( 6 ) I have scanned the submissions made across the bar in all its pros and cons. From the facts stated above it is clear that according to stand taken in the counter affidavit of the U. P. Jal Nigam 10,581 posts were created from time to time for regularization of the work charge/muster roll employees out of which only 9642 have been regularized and they are being paid regular pay scales. Certain posts out of the posts created are still vacant with the department. From the perusal of the counter affidavit it is manifestly clear that U. P. Jal Nigam was brought into being to resolve problem of drinking water in small townships below 2000 population under the 8th five year plan while the urban water supply schemes are financed by the State and central Government. It brooks no dispute that Ganga Action Plan -I and Ganga action Plan- II are also run by U. P. Jal nigam and these schemes are perpetual and permanent in nature. Similarly rural drinking water scheme and human resource development area also being run by the U. P. Jal Nigam. All these schemes are of permanent nature. ( 7 ) IN view of the contention of the learned counsel that drinking water has come to the recognised as fundamental right and further that burgeoning crisis of pollution has added wide dimension to the cumbersome task of providing potable water in the State of U. P. , the work of the jal Nigam is not likely to decrease but would rather increase manifold. It is in the contest of the above contention that I feel called to examine the question of regular appointment of the adhoc employees languishing in a state of uncertainty for years together. In A. P. Pollution Control board II v. Prof. M. V. Nayudu (Retd.)and others, (2001) 2 SCC 62 the Apex Court held that the right to access to drinking water is fundamental to life and there is a duty on the state under Article 21 to provide clean drinking water to its citizens. In Subhas kumar vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420 the relevant observation of the Apex Court was that the right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. In the prevailing situation, clean and pure drinking water qua the depleting resources and proliferation of population growth has attained the dimension of a challenge and the State too is striving hard and has spared no efforts to fling its all resources in providing clean and pure drinking water. The contention of the learned counsel carries some substance that with depleting resources the resolution of water problem cannot be measured in terms of months or years and it should be taken to be a perennial and continuing process with proiferation of population growth. With pure and clean water being declared as fundamental right, the State is called upon to strain more and more its existing resources to the fullest and in the circumstances it would be day dreaming to expect that the State would not need the services of the existing employees and that they would be surplus with coming to an end the existing project. Therefore, the plea of the U. P. Jal Nigam that the Jal niam assigns different projects a limited life and duration and limited work and that the appointments are made project wise and to endura for the period the concerned project subsists, is illusory and does not commend to me for acceptance. ( 8 ) IT admits of no doubt that the U. P. Jal Nigam was established to carry out the scheme to provide clean drinking water to the people residing in Uttar Pradesh. ( 8 ) IT admits of no doubt that the U. P. Jal Nigam was established to carry out the scheme to provide clean drinking water to the people residing in Uttar Pradesh. All such schemes whether it is to provide drinking water to the urban population or rural population or formulated as a nodal authority under the Ganga Action Plan-I or Ganga Action Plan-II, converge to one common object of accomplishing the goal of providing clean drinking water to the people of Uttar Pradesh. The argument of sri A. K. Misra, learned counsel for opposite Parties that the work and the schemes run by the U. P. Jal Nigam are not of permanent nature, in my considered view does not commend itself for acceptance in the perspective of facts stated supra. In fact the work of the U. P. Jal Nigam is, by all reckoning of permanent nature and with burgeoning population and expanding need of the humanity, it is not difficult to visualize that U. P. Jal Nigam is not going to fall short of work/projects and schemes would be available in planty to meet the future needs of the population with crisis of acute water shortage depending with each passing year qua the depleting resources and in the circumstances having regard as fundamental right, U. P. Jal Nigam is under a duty to grapple with the prospective need of the people of the state of U. P. for provision of clean drinking water. ( 9 ) THE order of 12. 10. 2001 passed by the Chief Engineer (Personnel), U. P. Jal Nigam providing minimum of the pay scale and other allowances to petitioners who according to the averments made in the petitions are languishing in precarious existence for more than ten years, was rescinded in view of the ratiocination flowing from the judgement in State of u. P. vs. Putti Lal (supra) as well as on the premises that it was not given approbation by the competent authority and the State of Uttar Pradesh. Learned counsel for petitioners placed evidence on the judgement in State of U. P. versus putti Lal (supra) in which Apex Court has provided minimum of the pay scale to the employees of the Forest department. The ground for cancellation of the order dated 12. 10. Learned counsel for petitioners placed evidence on the judgement in State of U. P. versus putti Lal (supra) in which Apex Court has provided minimum of the pay scale to the employees of the Forest department. The ground for cancellation of the order dated 12. 10. 2001 that in view of the judgment of Apex Court petitioners are not entitled to get minimum pay scale does not survive. The other reason given in the impugned order that it was not sanctified by approval of the competent authority and the State of Uttar Pradesh also has no grounding in the fact having regard to the fact that the order dated 12. 8. 2001 was levied in implementation and each and every muster roll employee working in the establishment since long was paid minimum of the pay scale equivalent to the regular employees who are discharging similar functions. More passing bald order by the Chief Engineer (Personnal) of U. P. Jal Nigam will not vivify the contention and put life into the order. It is not disputed that the payment has to be made by the State government and by this reckoning, it will not be difficult to visualise the paper must have been set in motion for go ahead by the competent authority to the State government and after necessary sanction given by the competent authority and approbation accorded by the State government the payment could possibly be made. It admits of no doubt that the petitioners must not have been paid minimum of the pay scale merely on the point of the order passed by the Chief engineer (Personnel ). The opposite parties have not brought any document to show as to how the actual payments came to be made. In my view this being a matter involving finances, unless the approval comes from the competent authority of U. P. Jal Nigam studded with approbation of the State Government, nor a single shall can be parted with in favour of any person. Moreover, opposite Parties have not dwelt upon this aspect in the counter affidavit as to who is the competent authority in the U. P. Jal Nigam and how the payments were made in compliance of the order of Chief Engineer (Personnel) in the event of absence of approval from the State Government. Moreover, opposite Parties have not dwelt upon this aspect in the counter affidavit as to who is the competent authority in the U. P. Jal Nigam and how the payments were made in compliance of the order of Chief Engineer (Personnel) in the event of absence of approval from the State Government. It would be pre-emptive of the duties of the court to wander off into this aspects and it is for the authority of the Nigam to consider and decide the same. ( 10 ) THE second aspect which is very relevant for the purposes of the present case is that all the petitioners have put in more than ten years and they have actually worked in unbroken continuity. Sri A. K. Misra, learned counsel for opposite Parties, has admitted before this court that all these persons are actually working and they have not been declared surplus. As held supra, the work of U. P. Jal Nigam is of permanent nature and its statutory function is to provide clean drinking water to the citizens of Uttar pradesh through various projects in the urban as well as in rural areas. It is also apparent from the counter affidavit that since 1985 up to now the U. P. Jal Nigam has framed a number of schemes for regularization of the muster roll work charge employees, which were subsequently approved by the State government. It is also apparent and admitted in this counter affidavit that 10581 posts were already created out of which more than 939 posts are still vacant and the criteria for regularization in U. P. Zal Nigam under various schemes since very beginning is continuous services for five years. In this perspective U. P. Jal nigam is enjoined to frame a fresh scheme and create remaining posts according to their requirements with approval of the State Government to regularize those persons who are working for more than five years approved by the state Government. In this perspective U. P. Jal nigam is enjoined to frame a fresh scheme and create remaining posts according to their requirements with approval of the State Government to regularize those persons who are working for more than five years approved by the state Government. In the perspective of the facts (supra) it is quite clear that the u. P. Jal Nigam under a policy has in the post framed schemes duly approbated by the State of U. P. for regularization of those employees who had put in five years of services and by this reckoning, the argument of Sri A. K. Misra that putti lals case which relates to regularization rules of the State Government is not intended for application to the daily wage/muster roll employees of the Jal nigam does commend to me for acceptance. In the circumstances, direction is rendered necessary that the u. P. Jal Nigam may take requisite steps for framing of fresh scheme consistent with its post policy for regularization of those muster roll /daily wage employees who had completed five years or more service in the department. ( 11 ) SO far as minimum of the pay scale is concerned, the Apex Court in both the cases cited across the bar held the consistent view that daily wage employees working since long and discharging same work at par with regularly appointed employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scale. The question posed before this court is whether in the light of various decisions of the Apex Court, the petitioners are entitled to other allowances as well or not. In State of Punjab and others v. Devinder singh and others, (1998) 9 SCC 595 the Apex Court was seized of the case of daily wage ledger keepers/ledger clerks on the question whether those daily wage Ledger clerks were entitled to salary and allowances at par with regularly appointed clerks in the department. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court the Apex court directed as under: "the direction issued by the High court in favour of the respondents entitling them to get the salary and allowances as regularly appointed employees is set aside and instead. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court the Apex court directed as under: "the direction issued by the High court in favour of the respondents entitling them to get the salary and allowances as regularly appointed employees is set aside and instead. It is directed that the respondents will be entitled to get the minimum of the pay scale available to the Ledger keepers/ledger clerks with permissible allowances on that basis and the difference between the emoluments already paid to each of the respondents and those payable to them pursuant to the present order will be payable to the respondents for a period of three years prior to the filling of the writ petition and thereafter minimum salary in the time scale of ledger keepers/ledger clerks with appropriate allowances thereon shall be available to the respondents so long they work as daily wage ledger keepers/ledger keepers. " ( 12 ) AT this stage, this Court takes notice of the decision rendered by the apex Court in Chandra Shekhar Azad university Agra. and Tech. V. Dainik wetan Bhogi Karamchari Sang and others. Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 14326 of 2001 The decision of the Apex Court is excerpted below: "in view of the limited notice that had been issued in this case, the question for our consideration is whether a daily wager, on being directed to be paid at the minimum off the scale of pay would also be entitled to the dearness allowances. The judgement of this Court in dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U. P. (1996) SCC 637, Surendra Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief (1996) 1 SCC 039, upit Deptt Contingent Paid Staff welfare Asso. V. Union of India (1987)supp SCC 668 and Daily Rated Casual labour v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 1221 support the contention that dearness allowances should also be payable to a daily wager. Mr. Pramod Swarup, learned counsel appearing for the University, however, says that while granting relief of dearness allowances, the financial burden on the state should also be looked into and in support of the case, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in State of haryana v. Jasmer Singh (1996) 11 SCC 77 ) and Daily R. C. Labour, P and T Deptt. V. Union of India ( AIR 1987 SC 2342 ). V. Union of India ( AIR 1987 SC 2342 ). Having examined the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned counsel we are of the view that these decisions are of no application to the point in issue. We, therefore, see no infirmity with the judgement requiring our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of india. The Special Leave petitions accordingly stand dismissed. " ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioners further urged that since the order passed by the Chief Engineer (Personnel) was given effect to by the impugned order without affording opportunity of hearing to petitioners, any alternation in the salary would amount to reduction of salary and further no recovery could be made from the petitioners for any money already paid as wages on the basis of the impugned order as petitioners have been paid salary which includes minimum of the pay scale as well as allowances and that cannot be reduced without giving opportunity of hearing. It is settled in law that salary cannot be reduced without giving opportunity of hearing. Reference in the context of proposition may be made to a decision of this Court in Mohan Singh v. Chandrika Bari. 1979 All. L. J. 1184 It was a case in which state government as well as Inspector general of Police interpreted R. 22 and R. 30 of the Fundamental Rules in petitioners favour and fixed their salary in the next higher stage and the petitioners continued to draw the same for a considerable period of time. The relevant observation of the Division Bench as contained in para 9 of the said decision is excerpted below: ". . . . . It was, therefore, not open to the state Government to recover the amount paid to the petitioners merely because some different view was possible on the interpretation of the Rules. It is well settled principle that wages paid to an employee by an employer voluntarily in bona fide manner with out there being any element of fraud or misrepresentation, can not be recovered from the employee subsequently merely on the ground that some mistake of interpretation of rules might have been committed by the employer for which the employee could not be held responsible. . . . . . . " ( 14 ) THE question posed on the court now is whether any recovery could be made in case payment was made bona fide by the authority concerned ? It is crystal clear that the order is not traceable for its basis to any misrepresentation or fraud or that any fraud was practiced by the petitioners. As a matter of fact, the petitioners have no art or part to play nor is it borne out from the record that the order has its genesis in the misrepresentation or fraud of the parties. Besides, the law is very clear that no recovery could be made from the petitioners unless any misrepresentation or fraud is borne out from the record (see jt 1995 (1) SC 24, 1979, ALJ 184 (DB)and 1996 AWC 94 ). ( 15 ) AS a result of foregoing discussions, Impugned order dated 22. 8. 2002 is quashed and the writ petitions are allowed studed with the following directions. (1) The U. P. Jal Nigam shall frame requisite ;scheme consistent with its policy as done in the past, for regularisation of Daily wage/muster roll work charge employee who have already completed five years of service in the department for regularisation. For this purpose, they will also create additional posts in addition to the 939 vacant posts created earlier according to their requirements and submit such scheme within two months. The State government shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate its decision within two months from the date of receipt of scheme from the Jal Nigam. (2) No recovery of any amount paid as salary under the orders of the Opp. Parties shall be made from the petitioners. In view of what has been observed above in the body of this judgment. (3) No fresh appointment shall be made in U. P. Jal Nigam in class 4 category till all the persons entitled under the scheme mentioned above, are considered for regularisation. (4) In view of the assertions that all the petitioners are discharging functions at par with similarly situated regular employees, the authorities shall go into the matter and shall pay minimum of the pay scale plus dearness allowances pending regularisation. They shall not be paid any other allowances. (5) There shall be no order as to costs.