JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral). 1. Present petition was listed for hearing on 17.09.2009. Since none appeared on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, same was dismissed for want of prosecution. 2. Undisputedly, Mr. P.C. Jhingan, Advocate, who was conducting petition on behalf of petitioner, expired in the year 2010, therefore, contention of Mr. H.C. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner seems to be justified that meanwhile, petitioner could not get any information about the progress of the case and when he changed his counsel in the year 2012, he came to know about the dismissal of the present petition. Consequently, restoration application along with delay condonation application was filed. For the reasons stated, delay condonation application no. 13779 of 2012 is allowed. Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. 3. For the reasons stated, restoration application no. 1001 of 2012 is allowed. Order dated 17.09.2009 passed by this Court is hereby recalled. Petition is restored to its original number. 4. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, matter is taken up today itself for final hearing. 5. Present petition is filed for the following reliefs: “i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner to be a daily wage employee of the minor irrigation Department of the State Government and create and sanction the post of High Drum Operator and regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of High Drum Operator. ii. To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay minimum of the pay scale of Class IV (Group D) employees of the State Govt. entitled the regular post of High Operator is not created and sanctioned. iii. To issue any other writ, direction or order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. iv. To award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.” 6. It has been averred in the writ petition that petitioner was appointed on a honorarium of ‘ 300/- per month and the duty of petitioner was to operate manually “High Drum” used for irrigation purpose placed on the land of high altitude in hilly area and to keep vigil on the High Drum in order to protect it from damage. 7. 7. Perusal of the counter affidavit would reveal that petitioner was never appointed by the Department, rather, he was appointed by the concerned Gram Sabha to look after the High Drum. 8. Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned Brief Holder for the State, submits that in hill area, for irrigation purposes, water is being controlled by putting High Drum Machine on the small dams and irrigation canals and work of the High Drum Operator is to release and stop the water and local people are engaged on part time basis to operate High Drum Machine on payment of honorarium. 9. On being asked, Mr. H.C. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, was not able to produce any appointment letter on record. 10. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed, therefore, contention of the respondents stands uncontrovered. 11. From perusal of record, I find that petitioner was only engaged as part time worker to operate High Drum and as and when necessity arises, local people were engaged to operate High Drum on payment of honorarium @ ‘ 300 per month. 12. Relief of the petitioner that post may be created and he may be regularized cannot be given in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 . 13. Consequently, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.