JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. - Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to direct the Opp. Parties to grant him regular pay of scale of Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 8,000 as admissible with respect to Junior Engineers (Scheme). 2. Petitioner holds Diploma in Civil Engineering. He passed in the year 1986. He has registered his name in the Employment Exchange. His name was enrolled as unemployed Diploma holder in the list maintained by the Chairman, Committee of Chief Engineers and concerned Heads of Departments and the Engineer-in-Chief (Civil) Orissa, Bhubaneswar. Petitioner being an unemployed Diploma Engineer, his name appeared as a Junior Engineer against the J.E. (Scheme) under the District Rural Development Agency, Keonjhar vide letter No. 18094 dated 28.03.2000, as per Annexure-1 . The Project Director, DRDA, Keonjhar in his letter No. 1558 dated 06.04.2000 directed the Petitioner to be present in his office with documents for verification on or before 15.04.2000. Petitioner made a representation on 14.04.2000 to the Project Director, DRDA, Keonjhar to extend of time for verification of the documents as he was ill. The DRDA, Keonjhar allowed time up to 14.05.2000 considering the representation of the Petitioner. Subsequently, the Petitioner has also made another representation on 12.05.2000 for granting further time due to his illness. When the Petitioner became medically fit, he submitted a letter requesting the Project Director, DRDA, Keonjhar along with medical certificate requesting for fixing a date for verification of documents for appointment as J.E. (Scheme). As no response was received, the Petitioner made a representation to the Director, Panchayati Raj Department on 15.05.2004 and Anr. representation to the Secretary to Government, Panchayati Raj Department. Thereafter again he represented to the Director, Panchayati Raj Deptt. on 17.06.2004 requesting for sponsoring his name to the DRDA for appointment as J.E. (Scheme). 3. The Government in Panchayati Raj Department vide letter No. 7429 dated 10.06.2005 requested the Project Director, DRDA, Jharsuguda to issue necessary appointment order in favour of the Petitioner as J.E. (Scheme) in a consolidated pay of Rs. 5,000 p.m. on contract basis against the vacancy under intimation to the Panchayati Raj Department. Accordingly, the Petitioner joined on 16.06.2005 under the DRDA, Jharsuguda as J.E. (Scheme). The Project Director, DRDA, Jharsuguda vide office order No. 1836 dated 27.06.2005 appointed the Petitioner as J.E. (Scheme) with a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 5,000 p.m. on contract basis against the vacancy under intimation to the Panchayati Raj Department. Accordingly, the Petitioner joined on 16.06.2005 under the DRDA, Jharsuguda as J.E. (Scheme). The Project Director, DRDA, Jharsuguda vide office order No. 1836 dated 27.06.2005 appointed the Petitioner as J.E. (Scheme) with a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 5,000 per month on annual contract basis and posted him in Jharsuguda block. In response to the order of appointment and posting under Annexure-5, the Petitioner reported to the BDO, Jharsuguda for duty on 27.06.2005. The Petitioner has been paid the consolidated pay of Rs. 5,000 p.m. from 16.06.2005. Petitioner, further, pleads that he has been discharging duties in the post of J.E. (Scheme) like regular Junior Engineers but he is being paid at a consolidated pay of Rs. 5,000 p.m. and the scale of pay attached to the post of Junior Engineer has not been paid to him. Petitioner has not found any contract nor any contract renewed from the date of joining as J.E. (Scheme) under the DRDA, Jharsuguda. Though the Petitioner has been continuing as J.E. (Scheme) and discharging his duties like regular Junior Engineer, he has not been pard the scale of pay attached to the post of Junior Engineer, i.e. Rs. 5,000 to 8,000 with DA and ADA as admissible from time to time. He pleads that the Panchayati Raj Department has directed the Project Directors, DRDA, Jharsuguda and DRDA, Gajapati to appoint Sri Fakir Charan Pradhan and Sri Man Mohan Jena in the J.E. (Scheme) along with regular pay as per the letter No. 6094 (2) dated 05.05.2003. They are being paid the regular scale of pay of Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 8,000 with usual DA and ADA. It is claimed by the Petitioner that those persons are juniors to him as they have passed the Diploma Course later on. Petitioner, further, pleaded that 323 posts of J.E. (Scheme) were sanctioned, out of which, 298 posts were filled up and balance 25 posts were lying vacant. Out of 25 vacant posts, 75% base level posts, i.e. 18 Nos. were abolished and the rest seven sanctioned posts were lying vacant. Against 7 Nos. of sanctioned posts, the Petitioner was appointed in one post as J.E. (Scheme) under the D.R.D.A., Jharsuguda under Annexure-5. Out of 25 vacant posts, 75% base level posts, i.e. 18 Nos. were abolished and the rest seven sanctioned posts were lying vacant. Against 7 Nos. of sanctioned posts, the Petitioner was appointed in one post as J.E. (Scheme) under the D.R.D.A., Jharsuguda under Annexure-5. He was appointed against the existing vacancy of sanctioned post and discharging his duties in the post of J.E. (Scheme) from the date of joining. There is no reason not to pay the scale of pay attached to the post of Junior Engineer even as persons junior to him are being paid the regular scale of pay attached to the post of J.E. Petitioner claims that as per the Rules 20 and 21 of Chapter-III of the Orissa District Rural Development Agency Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1989, he is entitled to the regular pay, DA and HRA at par with the other posts prescribed by the Government. In view of such provisions, the Petitioner is entitle i to the scale of pay, dearness pay, dearness allowance etc, at par with the similar employees under the State Government. 4. On an earlier occasion, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition bearing No. W.P. No. 14644 of 2006, inter alia, praying to grant scale of pay, which is meant for Junior Engineers. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 23.04.2007 directing the Opp. Party No. 1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner within a period of two months. Petitioner, further, pleads that after considering the material facts and violating the Court's direction, the Opp. Parties have passed the order after one year rejecting his claim mentioning, inter alia, that his appointment is on contractual basis and no regular salary can be paid to him. Petitioner pleads that his appointment is against a Scheme for which the Central Government is granting 75% of salary and for which the State Government should not have allowed the consolidated salary, which violates the Orissa District Rural Development Employees Service Regulation. Petitioner, further, pleads that there is already seven existing vacancy, out of which, one post he has been appointed and six posts still lying vacant. He further pleads that his case is a left out one and the Opp. Party No. 1 should not have directed the order of appointment in favour of the Petitioner at a consolidated pay on contract basis. He further pleads that his case is a left out one and the Opp. Party No. 1 should not have directed the order of appointment in favour of the Petitioner at a consolidated pay on contract basis. The Petitioner pleads that though the Opp. Party No. 1 has directed to issue order of appointment in favour of then Petitioner on consolidated pay on contract basis but the DRDA as per the Order Dated 27.06.2005 issued order of appointment in favour of the Petitioner and engagement was on annual contract basis as J.E. (Scheme) in a consolidated remuneration and also imposed several causes, one of which, he has to submit stamp papers of Rs. 11 for preparing annual contract. It is submitted that when the Opp. Party No. 1. has not directed to impose such condition, the DRDA, while issuing order of appointment in pursuance of the order passed by the Opp. Party No. 1, should not have imposed the condition that the Petitioner should submit a stamp papers of Rs. 11. Moreover, the Petitioner has not furnished that stamp papers for preparation of annual contract and has not accepted that contract. Thus, on such pleadings, the Petitioner claimed that the directions may be given to Opp. Parties to grant him regular pay of scale by quashing the order of contractual appointment, Annexure-5 and the order of rejecting representation under Annexure 11. 5. Opp. Parties 1 to 4 filed their counter affidavit, inter alia, pleading that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed while admitting most of the averments made by the Petitioner regarding his appointment on contractual basis. They, specifically, pleaded that the Petitioner's name was sponsored to the DRDA, Jharsuguda by the E.I.C. (Civil) in the year 2000 for appointment in the post of J.E. (JRY) re-designated as J.E. (Scheme) vide letter No. 18094 dated 28.03.2000 as per Annexure-1. Pursuant to Annexure-1, the Petitioner was requested by the office of the DRDA to report before the DRDA, Keonjhar with his original testimonials for verification and issuance of appointment order in his favour. However, the Petitioner did not report for verification of the documents within the extended time. Pursuant to Annexure-1, the Petitioner was requested by the office of the DRDA to report before the DRDA, Keonjhar with his original testimonials for verification and issuance of appointment order in his favour. However, the Petitioner did not report for verification of the documents within the extended time. Due to non-submission of the original records and his failure to report to the concerned authority within the extended time, his post was filled up by another candidate sponsored by the E.I.C. (Civil) and the Petitioner, thereafter, remained silent for four years. Petitioner made a representation on 15.05.2004 with a prayer to consider his case for appointment in any DRDA. However, the letter Annexure-2 reveals that the Petitioner was informed that if he was not reported on the scheduled date, then he would forfeit his claim for the post. Thus, his representation dated 15.05.2004 was devoid of any merit. It is further pleaded that in order to correct the deteriorating fiscal condition of the State, the Government in the year, 2004 took certain measures like ban on filing up vacancies, abolition of posts etc. Opp. Parties further pleaded that however considering the representation of the Petitioner as well as the requirement for filling up post of J.E. (Scheme) in Jharsuguda DRDA, he was offered an appointment against vacant post of J.E. (Scheme) in DRDA, Jharsuguda on contractual basis on a consolidated pay of Rs. 5,000 p.m. This decision for contractual appointment of J.E has been taken with the concurrence of the Finance Department. Petitioner accepted that offer without any objection and joined as a contractual J.E (Scheme) and subsequently getting his consolidated pay of Rs. 5,000 p.m. as per the terms and conditions of the appointment. The Opp. Parties, however, pleaded that because of financial stringency the State Government had decided to abolish base level post and to stop regular appointment instead contractual appointments were to be made. They further pleaded that there is no need to draw a comparison between the Petitioner and the J.E. (Scheme), who have been appointed on regular basis as they have appointed at a time when appointed with a certain scale of pay. The Opp. Parties further pleaded that the DRDA employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Regulations is not relevant to this case as the Petitioner has been engaged on contractual basis. The Opp. The Opp. Parties further pleaded that the DRDA employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Regulations is not relevant to this case as the Petitioner has been engaged on contractual basis. The Opp. Parties plead that since the Petitioner did not join on the appointed date or within the extended period, the post was subsequently filled up by another candidate. It is further submitted by the Opp. Parties that the Petitioner has not been selected in any recruitment process conducted by the Agency. The Opp. Parties contend that the Petitioner's case was not a left out one or at par with other employees and pray to dismiss the Writ Petition. The Opp. Party No. 3 has also filed a counter affidavit with the same averments as the other Opp. Parties. Petitioner has filed are joinder contending that his case is a left out one and he should be paid regular pay of scale as his appointment has been made against a vacant post. 6. The only question that requires adjudication in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to receive the pay of scale at par with other J.E. (Scheme), has a right to entitle in pursuance of the letter issued by the Chairman, Committee of Chief Engineers and concerned Heads of Departments and Engineering-in-Chief (Civil), Orissa dated 28.03.2000, i.e. Annexure-1. It is not disputed that the name of the Petitioner was sponsored by the Chairman of the aforesaid Committee to the Project Director, DRDA, Keonjhar. The Petitioner was issued with a letter (Annexure-2) to be remain present before the DRDA, Keonjhar on or before 15.04.2000 along with original testimonials. It has been specifically mentioned in Annexure-2 that in case of his failure to attend for verification it will be presumed that the Petitioner was not interested and that he shall forfeit his claim. The Petitioner further presented a written representation, Annexure-3, for extension of time due to his illness. However, it is seen that the Petitioner has not mentioned ground of illness he was suffering from nor any medical certificate has been annexed to the Writ Petition. However, considering his case, the DRDA, Keonjhar had extended time for one month for joining. Thereafter also he failed to appear before the appointing authority. It further appears that for a long time he remained silent. However, considering his case, the DRDA, Keonjhar had extended time for one month for joining. Thereafter also he failed to appear before the appointing authority. It further appears that for a long time he remained silent. On 19.04.2006, he made a representation to the Director, Panchayati Raj Department and the Deputy Secretary to the Government of the same department. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed a writ. A Division Bench of this Court, as per Order Dated 23.04.2007 in W.P. (C) No. 14644 of 2006 directed the Opp. Parties to consider the representation within a specific period. His representation was disposed of on 22.05.2008 wherein the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government noted that the Petitioner had accepted the contractual appointment at his own will as per the terms and conditions of the appointment as well as the consolidated remuneration was known to him when he accepted the appointment. Since the appointment is on contract basis, no regular salary can be claimed. He, further, indicated that no right can be found on an employment on contractual basis to claim that such employee on regular at par with the recruited candidates. 7. It is seen that, in the meantime, in the year 2003 certain appointment has been made on regular basis but that is prior to the contractual appointment of the Petitioner. Even before this contractual appointment of the Petitioner, the Government of Orissa, Finance Department as per letter No. Bt. V. 47/04, 55764 (45)/F. dated 31.12.2004, Annexure-A/1 issued certain directions for fiscal corrections and general guidelines for abolition of 75% of base level vacant posts and filling up of essential vacant posts including the exempted category and single post. In the said notification, the Government directed that if any base level vacant posts essentially required to be filled up, the same should be made on contract basis at a consolidated salary, that too only after abolition of former post carrying a particular scale of pay. The abolition of the regular post and creation of post at the consolidated salary would be indicated in the same office order so that in future there would be no scope of addition to the same post. 8. Annexure-5 is the order of appointment which clearly indicates that the Petitioner, who is a sponsored candidate of the J.E (Scheme) for engagement in J.E. in the vacant posts. 8. Annexure-5 is the order of appointment which clearly indicates that the Petitioner, who is a sponsored candidate of the J.E (Scheme) for engagement in J.E. in the vacant posts. The DRDA, Jharsuguda formally appointed on annual contract basis as J.E. (Scheme) in a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 5000 p.m. and posted as such to Jharsuguda block to work as Junior Engineer (Scheme) with immediate effect. So, Petitioner was directed to submit a Stamp Papers of Rs. 11 for preparation of annual contract which will be subject of service conditions prescribed by the Government. Thus, it is clear that the appointment of the Petitioner was on contractual basis with a fixed remuneration. The Petitioner is not entitled to be regularized in the service for the said post as he has forfeited his right by not reporting before the authority on the stipulated date, i.e. 15.04.2000 or on the extended date. Petitioner, therefore, cannot claim right to the post. Furthermore, the Petitioner remained silent for four years before making representations before the concerned authorities. No where in the Writ Petition he has mentioned the illness he was suffering from nor any medical certificate has been annexed. 9. In State of Punjab and others Vs. Surinder Kumar and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the appointments were issued as per the instructions of the concerned departments and the employees accepted the terms set out, then there is no reason why the specific term on which appointments made should not be enforced. 10. Thus, it is clear that the Petitioner has accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment and there is no suggestion that such acceptance of terms and conditions was on any mistaken impression. He was recommended for appointment in the year 2000. He remained silent for four years and in the year 2004, he made a representation and keeping in view the changed circumstances, i.e. issuance of the Finance Department notification, he was given contractual appointment. Thus, he is not entitled to be treated at par with the other employees, who have joined as per the instructions imparted to them. Therefore, this Court does not find any cogent reason for quashing Annexures-5 and 1.1. In the result, we dismiss the Writ Petition but considering the facts of the case without costs. Pradip Mohanty, J. I agree Final Result : Dismissed