JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 7 October 2013 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal (the Tribunal) in Claim Petition No. 1436 of 2008 that was filed by Virendra Singh, who has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 in this petition. The claim petition was filed for setting aside the orders dated 17 March 2008 and 19 March 2008 passed by the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer respectively posted at Etawah in the Irrigation Department of the State Government. A further direction that was sought in the claim petition was that Virendra Singh should be treated to be in continuous service on a class IV post and for payment of arrears of salary with consequential benefits. The claim petition was allowed by the Tribunal and the orders dated 17 March 2008 and 19 March 2008 were set aside. The Department was also directed to treat Virendra Singh to be in continuous service on a Class IV post with all consequential benefits. 2. The order dated 17 March 2008 passed by the Superintending Engineer seeks to cancel the earlier orders dated 18 January 2008 and 21 January 2008. The former order granted appointment to Virendra Singh on a class IV post in the work-charge establishment by giving him the benefit of a Circular dated 7 February 1997 that deals with regularization of daily wage workers on fulfillment of certain conditions, while the latter order seeks to appoint Virendra Singh in the regular establishment. 3. The Circular dated 7 February 1997 provides for regularisation of muster roll/daily wage workers engaged in the work-charge establishment of the Irrigation Department. It inter alia provides that muster roll/daily wage employees working in the work-charge establishment who have worked for more than 240 days as on 1 January 1993 and have also worked regularly upto the date of issuance of the Circular shall be considered for regularisation on the basis of seniority by a Committee consisting of the Superintending Engineer as the Chairman, an Executive Engineer nominated by the Superintending Engineer and three Assistant Engineers. 4. 4. Virendra Singh had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 28366 of 1999 (first petition) with an allegation that he had been engaged as a daily wage employee on the post of a driver on 6 March 1995 and had worked upto 12 September 1995, whereafter he was appointed by an order dated 2 September 1998 for three months but he was not permitted to work thereafter. In this said petition, Virendra Singh also claimed the benefit of regularisation of his services in terms of the Circular dated 7 February 1997. This petition was dismissed on 17 May 2001 and the benefit of the Circular dated 7 February 1997 was denied to Virendra Singh for the reason that he had not worked for more than 240 days as on 1 January 1993 nor had he worked continuously upto the date of issuance of the Circular. 5. However, concealing the filing of the first petition and its dismissal on 17 May 2001, Virendra Singh filed two representations dated 4 January 2006 and 10 June 2006 before the Department claiming the benefit of the Circular dated 7 February 1997. It was alleged that he had worked on daily wage basis on the post of driver in the Department from 1 April 1990 to 18 May 1999. Virendra Singh thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 54749 of 2006 (second petition) with a prayer that he may be regularized as a Class-IV employee in the Irrigation Department on the basis of the Circular dated 7 February 1997. This petition was disposed of by the High Court on 13 November 2007 with a direction that the said representations filed by Virendra Singh should be decided. 6. It is as a consequence of the aforesaid direction of the High Court that by order dated 18 January 2008 the services of Virendra Singh were regularised in the work-charge establishment and by order dated 21 January 2008 he was posted in the regular establishment. However, immediately on 22 January 2008 when the correct facts were placed, these two orders dated 18 January 2008 and 21 January 2008 were kept in abeyance and ultimately by the order dated 17 March 2008, these two orders were set aside by the Superintending Engineer. However, immediately on 22 January 2008 when the correct facts were placed, these two orders dated 18 January 2008 and 21 January 2008 were kept in abeyance and ultimately by the order dated 17 March 2008, these two orders were set aside by the Superintending Engineer. Subsequently, the two representations dated 4 January 2006 and 10 June 2006 filed by Virendra Singh were examined and rejected by the Executive Engineer by the order dated 19 March 2008. 7. These orders dated 17 March 2008 and 19 March 2008 were assailed by Virendra Singh in the claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition by order dated 7 October 2013. The Tribunal found that the order dated 17 March 2008 was based on incorrect facts for the reason that the regularisation of Virendra Singh on the post of Beldar in the work charge establishment and appointment on the post of Chaukidar in the regular establishment had been made by orders dated 18 January 2008 and 21 January 2008 in compliance of the order passed by the High Court on 13 November 2007 in the second petition filed by Virendra Singh, but the order dated 17 March 2008 refers to the dismissal of the first petition on 17 May 2001, which petition related to the post of driver and not to the post of Beldar or Chaukidar. The Tribunal also observed that the orders dated 18 January 2008 and 21 January 2008 were not in existence when the High Court passed the order on 17 May 2001 and so there could have been no occasion for quashing these two orders pursuant to a judgment rendered by the High Court on 17 May 2001. Insofar as the order dated 19 March 2008 is concerned, all that has been mentioned by the Tribunal is that it was apparent that Virendra Singh had worked for more than 240 days and the claim of the Department that he had not worked for more than 240 days was not correct in view of the letter dated 14 September 2005 written by the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer. The Tribunal, accordingly, set aside the orders dated 17 March 2008 and 19 March 2008. 8. Ms. The Tribunal, accordingly, set aside the orders dated 17 March 2008 and 19 March 2008. 8. Ms. Meenakshi Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners has submitted that : (i) the Tribunal committed a patent illegality in setting aside the order dated 17 March 2008 passed by the Superintending Engineer and the order dated 19 March 2008 passed by the Executive Engineer as Virendra Singh was not entitled to the benefit of the Circular dated 7 February 1997; (ii) the Circular dated 7 February 1997 confers benefit of regularisation of services to a muster roll employee/daily wage employee in the work-charge establishment of the Irrigation Department provided he had worked for more than 240 days as on 1 January 1993 and had thereafter continuously worked upto the issuance of the Circular on 7 February 1997. In view of the specific averments made by Virendra Singh in the first petition that he was engaged as a jeep driver on daily wage basis on 6 March 1995 and continued to work only upto 12 September 1995 prior to the issuance of the Circular, the claim of Virendra Singh that he was engaged even prior to 1 January 1993 or even before 6 March 1995 on daily wage basis and continued to work as such upto 7 February 1997 was absolutely false and even otherwise, there was no documentary evidence to substantiate this claim; (iii) Virendra Singh in his representations dated 4 January 2006 and 10 June 2006 did not mention the filing of the first petition nor did he state that his claim for regularisation on the basis of the Circular dated 7 February 1997 had been rejected in that writ petition that was dismissed on 17 May 2001. Virendra Singh, therefore, concealed material facts in his representations and obtained the benefit of the Circular dated 7 February 1997 by deliberately stating false facts; (iv) in the two representations dated on 4 January 2006 and 10 June 2006, Virendra Singh stated that he had worked as a daily wager on the post of a jeep driver from 1 April 1990 to 18 May 1999 whereas, in fact, in the first petition he specifically stated that prior to 6 March 1995 he was unemployed and was engaged in the Department only on 6 March 1995 on daily wage basis as a jeep driver and had worked upto 12 September 1995. Thus, the total period of engagement of Virendra Singh as a daily wager in the Department on the post of jeep driver was from 6 March 1995 upto 12 September 1995 and he could not have been given the benefit of Circular dated 7 February 1997; (v) the order dated 19 March 2008 was passed by the Executive Engineer after examining the records and as Virendra Singh did not satisfy the terms of the Circular dated 7 February 1997, the representations were rightly rejected; (vi) the Tribunal in a very casual manner dealt with the orders dated 17 March 2008 and 19 March 2008. The order dated 17 March 2008 has been completely misinterpreted by the Tribunal and the order dated 19 March 2008 which was passed after examining the entire records has been set aside merely on the basis of a note put up by the Executive Engineer, whereas by a specific order passed in 2006, the claim of Virendra Singh had earlier been rejected; (vii) even in the second petition, Virendra Singh did not bring to the notice of the Court the judgment dated 17 May 2001 by which the first petition filed by him had been dismissed; and (viii) Virendra Singh had, therefore, not only misled the Department by filing the two representations but also misled the Tribunal and the High Court and heavy costs should be imposed upon Virendra Singh for this act. 9. Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Virendra Singh, however, defended the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted : (i) the Tribunal committed no illegality in allowing the claim petition and quashing the orders dated 17 March 2008 and 19 March 2008; (ii) the order dated 18 January 2008 correctly conferred the benefit of the Circular dated 7 February 1997 upon Virendra Singh by appointing him in the work-charge establishment and thereafter the order dated 21 January 2008 placed him in the regular establishment; (iii) Virendra Singh had in the second petition disclosed the filing of the first petition and, therefore, it cannot be said that he had concealed any material fact from the Court and that it was incumbent upon the Department to have established that fraud had been committed by Virendra Singh. 10. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 11. 10. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 11. The basic issue that arises for consideration in this petition is whether Virendra Singh who had been engaged as a daily wage employee in the Department was entitled to the benefit of regularisation under the Circular dated 7 February 1997. 12. This benefit was claimed by Virendra Singh in the first petition that was filed by him and, therefore, it is necessary to refer to what was stated by Virendra Singh in the said petition. This petition was filed by Virendra Singh for a direction to the respondents to permit him to work on the post of a jeep driver in view of the order dated 2 September 1998 issued by the Executive Engineer. In the said petition, Virendra Singh stated that he possessed a valid driving licence and being unemployed was in search of a job either in Government or private service and when he came to know in 1995 that a post of jeep driver was vacant in the Irrigation Department at Etawah, he met the Executive Engineer who informed him that a post of a driver was vacant due to long leave of Pyare Lal and he could be appointed on the post of jeep driver on daily wage basis. Virendra Singh further stated that he accepted the offer and was given charge of a jeep on 6 March 1995 whereafter he worked regularly upto 12 September 1995. Subsequently, in the year 1998 he came to know that a temporary vacancy had been notified so he again met the Executive Engineer for being provided engagement on daily wage basis and he was given charge of the jeep on 1 January 1998. Thereafter, he worked regularly upto 31 August 1998 without break. Subsequently, an order dated 2 September 1998 was passed appointing him as jeep driver for a period of three months but from 1 July 1999 he was not permitted to work. The relevant paragraphs of the said petition are reproduced below : “2. That briefly facts stated are that petitioner has a valid Driving Licence for driving Heavy Four Wheel vehicle such as Trucks, Buses, Jeeps and cars. Being an unemployed youth petitioner was in search of some job either in Government service or in private services. 3. The relevant paragraphs of the said petition are reproduced below : “2. That briefly facts stated are that petitioner has a valid Driving Licence for driving Heavy Four Wheel vehicle such as Trucks, Buses, Jeeps and cars. Being an unemployed youth petitioner was in search of some job either in Government service or in private services. 3. That during search in the year 1995, he came to know that a post of Jeep Driver is lying vacant in the office of respondents, as such petitioner personally met with respondent No. 2 in march 1995 and requested him to appoint petitioner on the post of Jeep Driver. The respondent No. 2 told petitioner that the post is not a substantive post and the same is lying vacant due to long leave of a permanent employee as such petitioner could be appointed on the post of Jeep Driver on daily wages basis. 4. That being unemployed petitioner accepted the offer of respondent No. 2 and he was given charge of the jeep on 6 March 1995. Since 6 March 1995 to 12 September 1995 petitioner has regularly worked as a Jeep Driver under respondent No. 2 on daily wage basis. In all petitioner worked for 188 days regularly without any break.” 5. .................... 6. That thereafter in the year 1998 since January a temporary vacancy was again notified and as and when the petitioner has come to know about the said vacancy, petitioner at once met with respondent No. 2 personally and requested him to appoint on the said vacancy of Jeep Driver. The petitioner was again appointed on the post of Jeep Driver on daily wages basis and he was given charge of Jeep No. UP 82/8587 on 1 January 1998. 7. That since 1 January 1998 to 31 August 1998 petitioner has regularly worked on the post of Jeep Driver without any break. .................. ..................... 18. That when on 1 July 1999 petitioner has gone to his duty the respondent No. 2 has not permitted him either to sign the log book of the jeep or to take charge of the jeep”. (emphasis supplied) 13. This petition was dismissed by a detailed order dated 17 May 2001. .................. ..................... 18. That when on 1 July 1999 petitioner has gone to his duty the respondent No. 2 has not permitted him either to sign the log book of the jeep or to take charge of the jeep”. (emphasis supplied) 13. This petition was dismissed by a detailed order dated 17 May 2001. The Court held that Virendra Singh had never been given an appointment on a regular basis and even the appointment order dated 2 September 1998 which he had enclosed indicated that his appointment was for a period of three months only on temporary basis after which, it was stated, that his services would automatically come to an end. The Court also noted that he had never been appointed by following any process of recruitment and that he had no right to continue on the post nor was he entitled to any mandamus to continue on the post. The Court noted that in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it was also stated that the order dated 2 September 1998 had subsequently been cancelled on 19 September 1998 since the Executive Engineer was not the competent authority to issue the appointment order. The claim of Virendra Singh based on a communication for implementation of the Circular dated 7 February 1997 for regularisation of such daily wage employees who had completed 240 days as on 1 January 1993 and were continuously working in the work-charge establishment upto the date of issue of the circular was also rejected as Virendra Singh had not worked prior to 1 January 1993 on daily wage basis. Accordingly, the benefit of the said Circular was not given to Virendra Singh and the first petition was dismissed. 14. Virendra Singh filed Special Appeal No. 521 of 2003 to challenge the aforesaid order. The Special Appeal was dismissed on 4 August 2010 for non-prosecution. 15. It transpires that Virendra Singh thereafter filed two representations dated 4 January 2006 and 10 June 2006 for regularisation of his services. 14. Virendra Singh filed Special Appeal No. 521 of 2003 to challenge the aforesaid order. The Special Appeal was dismissed on 4 August 2010 for non-prosecution. 15. It transpires that Virendra Singh thereafter filed two representations dated 4 January 2006 and 10 June 2006 for regularisation of his services. The representation dated 4 January 2006 filed before the Principal Secretary (Irrigation) states that Virendra Singh had been working in the Lower Ganga Canal, Etawah on a daily wage basis on the post of a driver continuously from 1 April 1990 to 18 May 1999 and to support this plea he enclosed the certificates issued by the then Executive Engineer showing his working from 1 April 1990 to 30 September 1994, from 6 March 1995 to 12 September 1995 and thereafter from 1 January 1996 upto 18 May 1999. The representation further states that in view of the Circular dated 7 February 1997, Virendra Singh was entitled to be appointed in the work-charge establishment but the then Superintending Engineer did not grant him appointment. In this connection, he stated that the Superintending Engineer in his communication dated 20 January 2005 had called for report from the Executive Engineer who made a recommendation for appointment of Virendra Singh on a Class IV post in the work-charge establishment/regular establishment in view of the Circular dated 7 February 1997 but the Superintending Engineer constituted a Committee by order dated 10 October 2005 for consideration of his case for regularisation of his services. However, as this Committee did not include the Chairman, the Superintending Engineer constituted another Committee by order dated 26 November 2005 but this order was cancelled by a subsequent order dated 23 December 2005. A request was, therefore, made in the representation to regularise his services in view of the Circular dated 7 February 1997. The subsequent representation dated 10 June 2006 filed by Virendra Singh to the Chief Engineer mentions the same facts. 16. A request was, therefore, made in the representation to regularise his services in view of the Circular dated 7 February 1997. The subsequent representation dated 10 June 2006 filed by Virendra Singh to the Chief Engineer mentions the same facts. 16. What needs to be noticed is that these two representations do not mention the filing of the first petition in which Virendra Singh had claimed that he started working as a daily wage employee in the Department on the post of a driver from 6 March 1995 upto 12 September 1995 and thereafter from 1 January 1998 to 31 August 1998, nor did Virendra Singh mention that his claim for regularisation on the basis of the Circular dated 7 February 1997 had been rejected in the judgment delivered in the aforesaid writ petition on 17 May 2001. 17. It also needs to be noted that when no decision was taken on the two representations, Virendra Singh filed the second petition in 2006 with the following reliefs: “a. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise the petitioner’s services as class IV employee in the irrigation department in work charge establishment or in regular establishment since the date of Government Order dated 7.2.1997; b. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents as to pay salary to the petitioner in the department. c. issue any writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. d. to allow the writ petition and award the cost in favour of the petitioner”. 18. This second petition was filed claiming regularisation on a Class IV post in the Irrigation Department. It was stated that Virendra Singh had filed representations dated 4 January 2006 and 10 June 2006 for regularisation of his services on a class IV post but no decision had been taken. The said petition was disposed of on 13 November 2007 with the following observations : “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The said petition was disposed of on 13 November 2007 with the following observations : “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is claiming regularisation in service on the post of class IV employee in the irrigation department on the basis of the Regularisation of Daily Wagers Rules, 2001 and the Government Orders issued from time to time the petitioners already submitted his representation in this regard to the authority concerned i.e. the Executive Engineer on 4.1.2006 and again on 10.10.2006 but no action or decision is taken. Learned Standing counsel submits that since the representation of the petitioner for regularisation of service is already pending before the Executive Engineer, the same shall be considered and decided by the authority concerned. In view of the submissions made, no fruitful purposes shall be served in keeping the writ petition pending. It is accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 5 Executive Engineer, Etawah Prakhand, Nichli Ganga Nahar, Etawah to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner for regularising his services strictly in accordance with the Rules and the Government Orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.” 19. The order dated 18 January 2008 was then passed by the Superintending Engineer pursuant to the aforesaid direction that was issued by the High Court on 13 November 2007. The order mentions that since Virendra Singh had worked as a daily wage employee for more than 240 days as on 1 January 1993 in the work-charge establishment and was working as a daily wager upto the date of the issuance of the Circular dated 7 February 1997, he was being regularised on the post of a Beldar in the work-charge establishment from the date he would join the post. 20. A subsequent order dated 21 January 2008 was thereafter issued. This order refers to the regularisation of Virendra Singh by order dated 18 January 2008 and seeks to appoint him on a temporary post of a Chaukidar in the regular establishment with posting in the Etawah Division, Nichali Ganga Nahar, Etawah. 21. 20. A subsequent order dated 21 January 2008 was thereafter issued. This order refers to the regularisation of Virendra Singh by order dated 18 January 2008 and seeks to appoint him on a temporary post of a Chaukidar in the regular establishment with posting in the Etawah Division, Nichali Ganga Nahar, Etawah. 21. Immediately thereafter an order dated 22 January 2008 was issued by the Superintending Engineer to keep in abeyance the orders dated 18 January 2008 and 21 January 2008. Virendra Singh then filed Writ Petition No. 5711 of 2008 (third petition) to assail the said order dated 22 January 2008 passed by the Superintending Engineer. This petition was dismissed as being premature as a final decision had not been taken. However, an observation was made that the Executive Engineer should take a decision by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to Virendrra Singh. 22. The Superintending Engineer then passed a detailed order dated 17 March 2008 for cancellation of the orders dated 18 January 2008 and 21 January 2008. After making reference to the earlier orders dated 18 January 2008, 21 January 2008 and 22 January 2008, the Superintending Engineer noted that on examination of the records and the files available in the Division it was clear that the Divisional Office had sent a detailed note dated 20 April 2006 to the Chief Engineer stating that the appointment of Virendra Singh in the work-charge establishment/regular establishment would not be justified. The Superintending Engineer also noted that the first petition earlier filed by Virendra Singh had been dismissed. It is for this reason that the Superintending Engineer cancelled the earlier orders dated 18 January 2008 and 21 January 2008. 23. On cancellation of the orders dated 18 January 2008 and 21 January 2008, the Executive Engineer proceeded to decide afresh the two representations dated 4 January 2006 and 10 June 2006 that had been filed by Virendra Singh for regularisation of his services. This exercise was undertaken pursuant to the direction issued by the High Court on 13 November 2007 in the second petition filed by Virendra Singh as the earlier order dated 18 January 2008 deciding the representations had been cancelled by the Superintending Engineer. The two representations were decided by the order dated 19 March 2008. This exercise was undertaken pursuant to the direction issued by the High Court on 13 November 2007 in the second petition filed by Virendra Singh as the earlier order dated 18 January 2008 deciding the representations had been cancelled by the Superintending Engineer. The two representations were decided by the order dated 19 March 2008. The Executive Engineer, after noticing the three writ petitions that had been filed by Virendra Singh, observed that for deciding the two representations, the documents submitted by Virendra Singh were required to be verified from the office of the Division. It was found that for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992, there were no records regarding the work performed by the daily wagers. However, muster roll was available for 26 days in 1994 and two months in 1995, and for the months from January 1999 to May 1999, log book was available. The order mentions that there was no evidence on the record which could substantiate the claim of Virendra Singh that he had worked for 240 days prior to 1 January 1993 or had worked as a daily wage employee upto the issuance of the Circular dated 7 February 1997. The order thereafter considers the documents submitted by Virendra Singh namely, (i) the experience certificate dated 11 September 1995 issued by J.N. Rawat, the then Executive Engineer regarding the work performed by Virendra Singh as a jeep driver from 1 April 1990 to 30 September 1994; (ii) the experience certificate given by J.N. Rawat, the then Executive Engineer regarding work performed by Virendra Singh for 188 days in the year 1995; and (iii) the experience certificate given by A.R. Fatmi, the then Executive Engineer regarding the work performed by Virendra Singh as a Driver from 1 January 1996 to 18 May 1999. The Executive Engineer found that copies of these three certificates were not available in the office nor they appeared to have been issued from the office and the documents maintained in the office did not also substantiate the claim set up by Virendra Singh that he had ever worked for 240 days or more in one calender year. The Executive Engineer found that copies of these three certificates were not available in the office nor they appeared to have been issued from the office and the documents maintained in the office did not also substantiate the claim set up by Virendra Singh that he had ever worked for 240 days or more in one calender year. In fact, the Government Orders relating to engagement of workers on muster roll gave power to the Executive Engineer for engagement only for a period of one month, to the Superintending Engineer for engagement upto three months and to the Chief Engineer for engagement for any period above that. The certificates produced by Virendra Singh nor the documents maintained in the office indicated that prior approval had ever been given to the appointment of Virendra Singh. In such circumstances, the Executive Engineer concluded that the certificates relied upon by Virendra Singh were of no benefit to him. The Executive Engineer also noticed that the first petition filed by Virendra Singh was dismissed on 17 May 2001 and under the Circular dated 7 February 1997 regularisation could be done only if a daily wage employee had worked for 240 days as on 1 January 1993 and was continuously working upto the date of issuance of the Circular. The Executive Engineer did not accept the claim of Virendra Singh that he had worked for 240 days as on 1 January 1993 and had continuously been working for more than 240 days upto 7 February 1997. The Executive Engineer also noted that the contention of Virendra Singh that the then Superintending Engineer had constituted a Committee for regularisation of the services of Virendra Singh but the constitution of the Committee had been cancelled and the next Committee had not passed any order for regularisation in the absence of any document on record. The representations dated 4 January 2006 and 10 June 2006 filed by Virendra Singh were, accordingly, rejected by the Executive Engineer by the order dated 19 March 2008. 24. The representations dated 4 January 2006 and 10 June 2006 filed by Virendra Singh were, accordingly, rejected by the Executive Engineer by the order dated 19 March 2008. 24. The claim petition was filed by Virendra Singh before the Tribunal to assail the two orders dated 17 March 2008 and 19 March 2008 with the following averments: “That the petitioner, who was having requisite qualification for appointment to the post of driver was appointed on the post of driver on 1 April 1990 in the office of Executive Engineer, Lower Ganga Canal, Division, Etawah on daily wage basis and the petitioner was allowed to work, as such uptil 18 May 1999. The petitioner has worked on daily wage basis as driver of Jeep No. UTC/1325, UPT/8824, UP75/2433, UP75/9256 and UP82/8587. The petitioner was issued certificates regarding his work and conduct as driver by the respondent No. 5, which make explicit that the petitioner has satisfactorily worked as jeep driver with effect from 1 April 1990 to 30 September 1994. ................. That thereafter the petitioner was also allowed to work as jeep driver on daily wage/muster roll and he was accordingly paid salary for 188 days for the period 6 March 1995 to 12 September 1995 and a certificate in this regard was duly issued by the Executive Engineer, Ganga Canal Division, Etawah on 6 December 2005". (emphasis supplied) 25. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition by order dated 7 October 2013 and the relevant portion is as follows: “On consideration of arguments, facts and records put up by both the parties, we found that main contention of the petitioner is that the regularisation of the petitioner on the post of Beldar and Chaukidar has been made by the opposite parties by impugned orders dated 18.1.2008 and 21.1.2008 (Annexure-25 and 27) respectively and the impugned order dated 17.3.2008 has been passed in compliance of the Hon’ble High Court’s order, which has been passed on 17.5.2001 (Annexure-13) pertaining to the matter for the post of driver and not to the post of Beldar and Chaukidar, therefore, this impugned order dated 17.3.2008 (Annexure-1) is based on incorrect facts. The main contention of the opposite parties is that petitioner has not worked for 240 days, therefore, the impugned orders dated 17.3.2008 and 19.3.2008 (Annexure-1 and 2) have been passed. The main contention of the opposite parties is that petitioner has not worked for 240 days, therefore, the impugned orders dated 17.3.2008 and 19.3.2008 (Annexure-1 and 2) have been passed. Now the point for consideration is whether the Hon’ble High Court has decided the regularisation of the petitioner by its judgment dated 17.5.2001 (Annexure-13) or not? Whether petitioner has worked for 240 days or not? While considering these two points, we found that Hon’ble High Court has passed the order on 17.5.2001 (Annexure-13) in writ petition No. 28366 of 1999 pertaining to the working of the petitioner on the post of Jeep driver, whereas the regularisation of the petitioner has been done by the opposite parties later on dates 18.1.2008 and 21.1.2008 (Annexure-25 and 27). The opposite parties while passing the impugned order dated 17.3.2008 (Annexure-1) to cancel the regularistion of the petitioner made on the post of Beldar and Chaukidar vide orders dated 18.1.2009 and 21.1.2008 (Annexure-25 and 27) has mentioned the Hon’ble High Court’s order dated 17.5.2001. In fact these two orders dated 18.1.2008 and 21.1.2008 (Annexures-25 and 27) were not in existence when Hon’ble High Court has passed its order on 17.5.2001 (Annexure-13), therefore, there is no question of considering these two orders by the Hon’ble High Court. Thus impugned order dated 17.3.2008 (Annexure-13) is based on incorrect fact, the correct position is that opposite parties have passed the order dated 18.1.2008 and 21.1.2008 after a gap of seven years of the Hon’ble High Court’s order dated 17.5.2001 (Annexure-13). ................. So far as the impugned order dated 19.3.2008 (Annexure-2) is concerned, the reliability of Annexure-8, which is a letter dated 14.9.2005 written by the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer clearly proves that petitioner has performed his duties more than 240 days, therefore, his regularisation on the post of Beldar and Chaukidar done by the opposite parties is correct and the arguments of the opposite parties that he has not worked for 240 days is not sustainable in the light of these facts mentioned in Annexure-8, which is a letter written by the Executive Engineer to Superintending Engineer on14.9.2005. ...................” 26. The main issue that arises for consideration is whether Virendra Singh, who had been working as a daily wager in the work-charge establishment of the Irrigation Department, fulfilled the conditions set out in the Circular dated 7 February 1997 for regularisation of his services. 27. ...................” 26. The main issue that arises for consideration is whether Virendra Singh, who had been working as a daily wager in the work-charge establishment of the Irrigation Department, fulfilled the conditions set out in the Circular dated 7 February 1997 for regularisation of his services. 27. In order to get the benefit of the said Circular, it was incumbent upon Virendra Singh to have substantiated that he had worked as a daily wager for more than 240 days as on 1 January 1993 in the work-charge establishment and thereafter continuously as a daily wage employee upto the date of issuance of the Circular on 7 February 1997. 28. The averments made by Virendra Singh in the first petition, therefore, assume importance. Virendra Singh specifically stated in the said writ petition that he held a valid driving licence and being an unemployed youth was in search of a Government job and when he came to know in 1995 that a post of jeep driver was vacant in the Irrigation Department, he met the Executive Engineer who informed him that a post of driver was lying vacant and he could be appointed on daily wage basis. Virendra Singh specifically stated that being unemployed, he accepted the offer and was given charge of a driver on 6 March 1995 and he worked regularly as a jeep driver on daily wage basis upto 12 September 1995. After that, he was again, on 1 January 1998, engaged as a jeep driver on daily wage basis and he worked regularly upto 31 August 1998. This clearly establishes that prior to 6 March 1995, Virendra Singh was unemployed and was not working on daily wage basis in the work-charge establishment of the Irrigation Department. This petition was dismissed on 17 May 2001 and the claim of Virendra Singh on the basis of the the Circular dated 7 February 2016 was also rejected for the reason that he was not working as a daily wage basis in the work-charge establishment as on 1 January 1993 and in fact had been engaged only on 6 March 1995. Virendra Singh filed Special Appeal No. 521 of 2003 which was also dismissed in default on 4 August 2010. 29. Virendra Singh filed Special Appeal No. 521 of 2003 which was also dismissed in default on 4 August 2010. 29. What appears is that in order to avail of the benefit of the Circular dated 7 February 1997 despite his claim having been rejected in the first petition, Virendra Singh filed a representation dated 4 January 2006 before the Principal Secretary (Irrigation) alleging that he had worked on daily wage basis in the Lower Ganga Canal continuously from 1 April 1990 to 18 May 1999 on the post of a driver and for this purpose, he enclosed certain certificates said to have been issued by the then Executive Engineer showing his working from 1 April 1990 to 30 September 1994, from 6 March 1995 to 12 September 1995 and thereafter from 1 January 1996 upto 18 May 1999. On the basis of these certificates, Virendra Singh claimed regularisation on the basis of the Circular dated 7 February 1997. The subsequent representation dated 10 June 2006 submitted to the Chief Engineer also mentions the same facts. There is no manner of doubt that the averments made by Virednra Singh in the aforesaid two representations that he had worked as a daily wager from 1 April 1990 to 18 May 1999 continuously on the post of a driver were false and made with the sole object of getting the benefit of Circular dated 7 February 1997. Virendra Singh in the first petition, as noted above, had come out with a categorical case that prior to 6 March 1995 he was unemployed though he had a valid driving licence. He also specifically stated that he had worked on daily wage basis only from 6 March 1995 upto 12 September 1995 and thereafter from 1 January 1998 to 31 August 1998. What is important to note is that in the representations, Virendra Singh did not disclose to the Department that he had filed the first petition and that the said petition had been dismissed on 17 May 2001. He also did not disclose that his claim for regularisation under the Circular dated 7 February 1997 had been rejected by the High Court in its judgment dated 17 May 2001 for the reason that he was not working on daily wage basis on 1 January 1993 as he had been engaged as a daily wage employee only on 6 March 1995 as a jeep driver. Even in the second petition that Virendra Singh subsequently filed in which a direction was issued to decide the two representations dated 4 January 2006 and 10 June 2006, he did not place on record the judgment delivered by the High Court on 17 May 2001 in the first petition. What also needs to be noticed is that though a prayer had been made in the writ petition for regularising his services as a Class IV employee in the Irrigation Department in the work-charge establishment/regular establishment in view of the Circular dated 7 February 1997, what was submitted before the High Court, as is clear from the judgment, is that his services should be regularised under the U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointment on Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001. 30. The Superintending Engineer, to ensure compliance of the directions of the High Court, issued the order dated 18 January 2008. This order merely refers to the order dated 13 November 2007 passed by the High Court in the second petition filed by Virendra Singh and then mentions that since he had worked for 240 days as a daily wager as on 1 January 1993 in the work-charge establishment and had been regularly working as a daily wage employee upto the date of issuance of the Circular dated 7 February 1997, he was being regularised on the post of Beldar in the work-charge establishment. The order does not refer to any record on the basis of which the Superintending Engineer could conclude that Virednra Singh had completed 240 days in the work-charge establishment as on 1 January 1993 and had been continuously working as such upto 7 February 1997. The subsequent order dated 21 January 2008 merely appoints Virendra Singh as a Chaukidar on a temporary basis in the regular establishment. These two orders were, however, immediately kept in abeyance on 22 January 2008 and were ultimately cancelled by the Superintending Engineer by order dated 17 March 2008. The said order was passed after examination of the entire records including the order dated 20 April 2006 which found that Virendra Singh was not entitled to be regularised. The order dated 17 March 2008 also refers to the filing of the first petition and its dismissal by the order dated 17 May 2001. 31. The said order was passed after examination of the entire records including the order dated 20 April 2006 which found that Virendra Singh was not entitled to be regularised. The order dated 17 March 2008 also refers to the filing of the first petition and its dismissal by the order dated 17 May 2001. 31. Thereafter, to ensure compliance of the direction issued by the High Court on 13 November 2007 in the second petition for deciding the two representations dated 4 January 2006 and 10 June 2006, as the order dated 18 January 2008 which decided the representations was cancelled, the Executive Engineer passed a detailed order dated 19 March 2008. This order examines in detail the records that were available in the Department as also the three writ petitions that were filed by Virendra Singh. A categorical finding of fact has been recorded in the order that there was no record available in the Department to substantiate the claim of Virendra Singh that he had worked as a daily wager for more than 240 days as on 1 January 1993 and then continuously upto the issuance of the Circular on 7 February 1997. The certificates, on which reliance was placed by Virendra Singh, except the certificate which indicated that he had worked from 6 March 1995 to 12 September 1995 were not relied upon as copies were neither available in the Department nor were they factually correct. These two orders dated 17 March 2008 and 19 March 2008 were assailed before the Tribunal. 32. At this stage, it is necessary to emphasise on the contrary stand taken by Virendra Singh in the first petition and the averments made by him in the claim petition. In the first petition, Virendra Singh stated : “....... Being an unemployed youth petitioner was in search of some job either in Government service or in private services. That during search in the year 1995, he came to know that a post of Jeep Driver is lying vacant in the office of respondents. ........... That being unemployed petitioner accepted the offer of respondent No. 2 and he was given charge of the jeep on 6 March 1995. Since 6 March 1995 to 12 September 1995 petitioner has regularly worked as a Jeep Driver under respondent No. 2 on daily wage basis. In all petitioner worked for 188 days regularly without any break. .....” 33. That being unemployed petitioner accepted the offer of respondent No. 2 and he was given charge of the jeep on 6 March 1995. Since 6 March 1995 to 12 September 1995 petitioner has regularly worked as a Jeep Driver under respondent No. 2 on daily wage basis. In all petitioner worked for 188 days regularly without any break. .....” 33. However, in the claim petition he stated that he was appointed on daily wages on the post of a jeep driver on 1 April 1990 and was allowed to work upto 18 May 1999. The averment is reproduced : “That the petitioner, who was having requisite qualification for appointment to the post of driver was appointed on the post of driver on 1 April 1990 in the office of Executive Engineer, Lower Ganga Canal, Division, Etawah on daily wage basis and the petitioner was allowed to work, as such uptil 18 May 1999 ........” 34. The Tribunal, however, found fault with the order dated 17 March 2008 passed by the Superintending Engineering for cancellation of the earlier orders dated 18 January 2008 and 21 January 2008 for the reason that both the orders were not in existence when the High Court decided the first petition on 17 May 2001 and that the regularization was done on the post of Beldar and not on the post of a Jeep Driver. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the judgment dated 17 May 2001 passed in the first petition filed by Virendra Singh could not have been made the basis for cancelling the orders dated 18 January 2008 and 21 January 2008. The Tribunal completely failed to notice that the order dated 17 March 2008 also refers to the order dated 20 April 2006 by which the claim of Virendra Singh for regularisation was not found to be correct and that in the two representations Virendra Singh had stated that he was working as a jeep driver on daily wage basis and not as a beldar. The Tribunal also failed to consider that the judgment delivered on 17 May 2001 in the first petition rejected the claim of Virendra Singh for regularisation of his services in the work-charge establishment on the basis of the Circular dated 7 February 1997. The Tribunal also failed to consider that the judgment delivered on 17 May 2001 in the first petition rejected the claim of Virendra Singh for regularisation of his services in the work-charge establishment on the basis of the Circular dated 7 February 1997. Infact the Tribunal did not even consider it appropriate to refer to the judgment though it was referred to in the order impugned before the Tribunal. In the written statement filed to the claim petition, the Department had also clearly denied the averments made in the claim petition but there is no mention of the averments made in the written statement. While dealing with the order dated 19 March 2008 passed by the Executive Engineer to reject the two representations dated 4 January 2006 and 10 June 2006, the Tribunal completely failed to examine the facts stated in the order. It appears that the Tribunal was only concerned with the recommendation made by the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer in the communication dated 14 September 2005. The said recommendation was of no benefit as the Superintending Engineer had thereafter constituted a Committee to examine the claim as was required under the Circular and the Committee did not make any recommendation. The Executive Engineer had in the order dated 19 March 2008 found as a fact that Virendra Singh was not working as a daily wager as on 1 January 1993 nor was there any evidence to substantiate that he had worked regularly on a daily wage basis upto 7 February 1997 when the Circular was issued. The Tribunal also completely failed to examine the averments made by Virendra Singh in the first petition and the judgment delivered in that petition on 17 May 2001. It is clear that in his anxiety to claim the benefit of the Circular dated 7 February 1997, Virendra Singh set up an absolutely false claim in the two representations dated 4 January 2006 and 10 June 2006 that he had been engaged as a jeep driver on daily wage basis in the work-charge establishment of the Irrigation Department from 1 April 1990 to 18 May 1999. Virendra Singh deliberately and for ulterior motives did not mention the filing of the first petition and its dismissal by the judgment dated 17 May 2001 because in that case, he would not have been able to claim the benefit of the Circular dated 7 February 1997 as this benefit had clearly been denied to him in the judgment delivered in the said petition. Even in the subsequent second petition, Virendra Singh did not mention that the first petition that he had filed, had been dismissed by judgment dated 17 May 2001 and that his claim for regularisation on the basis of the Circular dated 7 February 1997 had been rejected. In the second petition, Virendra Singh again sought the benefit of the Circular dated 7 February 1997 for regularisation of his services and obtained an order for disposal of the two representations. The Superintending Engineer, while passing the order dated 18 January 2008, as noted above, failed to examine the document on the basis of which Virendra Singh was claiming regularisation and only a bald statement was made in the order that Virendra Singh had worked for more than 240 days as on 1 January 1993 and was regularly working on daily wage basis upto the issuance of the Circular dated 7 February 1997. 35. What also needs to be noted is that Virendra Singh had placed reliance on certificates alleged to have been issued by the then Executive Engineer regarding his engagements. Neither did he bring on record any document to show that he had received wages for the said period nor any such statement was made either in the representations or in the writ petition. On the contrary, the specific averment that was made by Virendra Singh in the first petition was that he was engaged as a jeep driver on daily wage basis on 6 March 1995 and worked on daily wage basis upto 12 September 1995. A deliberate false statement was, therefore, made in the two representations and the claim petition that he was engaged as a jeep driver from 1 April 1990 to 18 May 1999. 36. The order of the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. 37. A deliberate false statement was, therefore, made in the two representations and the claim petition that he was engaged as a jeep driver from 1 April 1990 to 18 May 1999. 36. The order of the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. 37. What is also important is that while entertaining this writ petition, the Division Bench on 9 May 2014 directed Virendra Singh to file his personal affidavit to indicate whether he had disclosed the judgment dated 17 May 2001 passed in the first petition in the representations before the Authority and as to whether such facts were disclosed before the High Court in the second petition. In the affidavit filed by Virendra Singh in response to the said directions of the High Court, a copy of the second second petition has been enclosed. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit, all that has been stated is that the first petition had been filed against the order dated 19 September 1998 that cancelled the order dated 2 September 1998 and this petition was dismissed on 17 May 2001 against which a Special Appeal was preferred. Virendra Singh has, therefore, not only misled the Department but also the High Court for securing the benefit of the Circular dated 7 February 1997. It is, therefore, a case where not only the order passed by the Tribunal on 7 October 2013 should be set aside but costs should also be imposed upon Virendra Singh for deliberately concealing material facts and also stating incorrect facts before the Department as well as before the Tribunal and this Court. 38. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the order dated 7 October 2013 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the claim petition shall stand dismissed. As Virendra Singh had deliberately mislead the Department and this Court, we consider it appropriate to impose costs of Rs. 25,000/- on Virendra Singh which shall be deposited by him before the Registrar General of the Court within a period of two months from today. On deposit of such cost, it shall be transmitted to the account of the Allahabad High Court, Mediation and Conciliation Centre. 25,000/- on Virendra Singh which shall be deposited by him before the Registrar General of the Court within a period of two months from today. On deposit of such cost, it shall be transmitted to the account of the Allahabad High Court, Mediation and Conciliation Centre. If Virendra Singh fails to deposit the cost, the Registrar General of the Court shall inform the District Magistrate, Etawah for recovery of the said amount as arrears of the land revenue and after recovering the said amount, it shall be transmitted to the Registrar General of the Court for depositing it in the account of the Allahabad High Court, Mediation and Conciliation Centre. 39. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid directions.