JUDGMENT Delay condoned. This special appeal has been preferred assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.419 (S/S) of 2002 whereby, the claim of the petitioner/appellant for continuance in service of Work Charge Establishment and regularization has been rejected. The petitioner/appellant in the writ petition has pleaded that he was engaged in work Charge Establishment in Rural Engineering Services at Gonda with effect from 01.03.1982 and has continued to work in the same Establishment upto 31.03.2001 albeit some breaks. It is further contended that the petitioner/appellant's services were orally terminated though the work for which the services were engaged, still continues. We have perused the records available and have also gone into the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge who has recorded categorical finding that the petitioner/appellant has failed to justify the authenticity of the certificate by giving the date and name of the concerned officer who had issued the said certificate. Learned Single Judge has also recorded a categorical finding that the document is incomplete in terms of the date and the name of the authority who had issued the same and hence cannot be subjected to verification. Learned Single Judge has thus, found that the petitioner/appellant has failed to establish his continuance as a Work Charge Employee as was averred by him in the writ petition. The submission of the petitioner/appellant is that in the year 1984, a new Division at Bahraich was created and certain employees working in the Work Charge Establishment at Gonda, were transferred to Bahraich and, therefore, the records relating to the continuance of the petitioner/appellant in 1984-2001 would be available at Bahraich Division. The statement as has been asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant does not appear to be correct for the reason that while filing counter affidavit, the respondents have enclosed a copy of the letter dated 14.05.2016 written by the Executive Engineer, Baharaich Division to the Assistant Engineer, Bahraich Division requiring him to certify the experience certificate allegedly issued in favour of the petitioner/appellant on which, a categorical statement has been made by the Assistant Engineer Bahraich Division that neither the certificate was issued by the then Assistant Engineer nor at Bahraich Division any document or record is available concerning the said certificate. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the special appeal which is hereby dismissed.