JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has preferred present petition under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India and challenged inaction on the part of the respondents seeking below mentioned relief/s:- "9.(A) Your Lordship be pleased to Allow this Special Civil Application and further be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper quashing and setting aside the impugned Order/Letter dated 12.02.2007 of the respondent No.1 rejecting the representations of the petitioner (Annexure-J) as well as the Order dated 6.10.2006 (Annexure-G) passed by the respondent No.2, repatriating the petitioner to respondent No.1 by keeping the post of peon on abeyance as both the orders are being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the provisions of law; (B) Your Lordship be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper declaring that the action of the respondents terminating the services of the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and against the principle of natural justice because the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon on daily wage basis since 1999 and for the reasons stated in the memo of petition and in the interest of justice and fairness of things: (C) Your Lordship be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper directing the respondent No.1 Collector, District Panchmahal, to appoint the petitioner on the post of Peon as other similarly situated persons, who were appointed along with the petitioner, are working in various offices under the Control of respondent No.1 in the pay scale of Rs. 2,550 to 3,200/- for the reasons stated in the memo of petition and in the interest of justice and fairness of things; (D) Pending hearing and final disposal of present petition, Your Lordship be pleased to: 1. restrain the respondents, their agents, officers and servants from terminating the services of the petitioner and further be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to allot work to the petitioner as Peon and to pay him the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 2,550 to 3,200/- as other similarly situated persons, who were appointed along with the petitioner. restrain the respondents, their agents, officers and servants from terminating the services of the petitioner and further be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to allot work to the petitioner as Peon and to pay him the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 2,550 to 3,200/- as other similarly situated persons, who were appointed along with the petitioner. are working in various offices under the Control of respondent No.1 in the pay scale of Rs. 2,550 to 3,200/- and for the reasons stated in the memo of petition and in the interest of principle of natural justice; 2. direct the respondent No.2 to make difference in salary to the petitioner for the period from 1.7.2000 to 30.10.2006 in the time scale of Rs. 2,550 - 3,200/- with 12% interest as the petitioner was paid only the ad hoc payment of Rs. 2,549/- p.m. though other similarly situated persons who were appointed along with the petitioner are being paid in the time scale of Rs. 2,550 - 3,200/- from the date of their appointments and in the interest of justice and fairness of things; 3. Any other reliefs, which is deemed fit and proper by Your Lordships may please be granted in the interest of justice. 4. Ad interim relief/interim relief in terms of Para-8(C)(i) may please be granted in the interest of justice as the petitioner has no other source of income for his livelihood.” 2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that initially the petitioner was appointed by Respondent No. 1 -Collector on 20.8.1999 on the post of Peon. Earlier in place of petitioner, someone else was appointed by the Collector after following the procedures i.e. inviting applications from various intending candidates for the post of Peon. As the candidate selected at Serial. No. 12, did not appear, therefore present petitioner came to be appointed on 20.8.1999. 2.1 Thereafter, the petitioner was continued in the service and again appointment order dated 22.9.1999 came to be issued by the Collector, Panchmahal. Thereafter, the appointment of the petitioner was once again made on 11.10.1999 and thereafter, the petitioner was continued in service every month. 2.2 Then the Commissioner, Sardar Sarovar Rehabilitation Agency, Vadodara, vide his letter dated 29.12.1999, has requested to the respondent No.1 Collector, Panchmahal, for appointment of one post of Peon in their office. Thereafter, the appointment of the petitioner was once again made on 11.10.1999 and thereafter, the petitioner was continued in service every month. 2.2 Then the Commissioner, Sardar Sarovar Rehabilitation Agency, Vadodara, vide his letter dated 29.12.1999, has requested to the respondent No.1 Collector, Panchmahal, for appointment of one post of Peon in their office. 2.3 Pursuant to the said requisition of the Commissioner, Sardar Sarovar Rehabilitation Agency, had allocated the service of the present petitioner to respondent No.2 by his order dated 24.8.2000. 2.4 The service of present petitioner was allocated to respondent No.2 w.e.f. 1.1.2000 and the petitioner was appointed by various appointment orders by respondent No.2 on various dates i.e. between 1.1.2000 and 23.3.2006. 2.5 The Collector has appointed the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 2,550-3,200, however, the respondent No.2 did not follow the said practice and the petitioner was paid ad hoc payment of 2,549/-. Since the petitioner was not getting salary from the office of respondent No.2, the petitioner has made application on 30.05.2006 to the Assistant Commissioner for giving the salary. 2.6 The Senior Clerk who was working in the Office of the respondent No.2 was harassing the petitioner because the petitioner refused to work at the residence of the said Senior Clerk, and that the said Senior Clerk with mala fide intention misguided the higher officer and therefore, respondent No.2 instead of paying the salary to the petitioner, at the insistence of the Senior Clerk working in his office, kept the post of the peon in abeyance and repatriated the petitioner to the office of the respondent No.1 Collector, Panchmahal. 2.7 The petitioner has also made representation to respondent No.1 on 1.9.2006 and 16.10.2006 pointing out the persons who were appointed along with the petitioner, were continued in service and only the petitioner has been singled out, and that too, the post of Peon cannot be kept in abeyance, but the second respondent without the consultation of Collector has kept the post of peon in abeyance and thereafter, the petitioner has been referred to the service with respondent No.1. 2.8 In view of the representation made by the petitioner for giving the benefits of salary as has been given to other similarly situated persons, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 23121 of 2006 before this Court and the same was disposed of by this Court by Order dated 13.11.2006. 2.9 The order passed by this Court on 13.11.2006 has not been complied with and therefore, Misc. Civil Application No. 206 of 2007 was filed which came to be disposed of by this Court on 19.2.2007. 2.10 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of respondent dated 12.02.2007 rejecting the representations made by the petitioner for giving work and not paying the salary as has been paying to other similarly situated persons, who were appointed along with the petitioner, the petitioner has preferred present petition. 3. Heard Mr. B.T. Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1. 3.1 Mr. B.T. Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is wrongly terminated by the respondent, since similarly situated persons are working with the respondent and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the appointment. Mr. B.T. Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the impugned order passed by respondent, the petitioner has preferred Special Civil Application No.23121 of 2006 and the Court vide order dated 13.11.2006 directed the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner. He has referred to paragraph Nos.3 to 6 of the order dated 13.11.2006 which read as under:- “3. Therefore, in view of these facts, it is directed to the respondent to decide the representations dated 1st September 2006 and 17th October 2006 made by the petitioner and examine the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receiving the copy of the said order and communicate immediately to the petitioner. 4. It is further directed to the respondent to consider the case for non-payment of two months salary and difference of salary for the relevant period to the petitioner. 5. In view of above observations and direction, present petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits. Direct service is permitted. 6. 4. It is further directed to the respondent to consider the case for non-payment of two months salary and difference of salary for the relevant period to the petitioner. 5. In view of above observations and direction, present petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits. Direct service is permitted. 6. However, in case, if, ultimate decision conclusion of the respondent - authority is against the petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the said before appropriate forum in accordance with law.” 3.2 Mr. B.T. Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order/letter of respondent No.1 rejecting the representation of the petitioner is erroneous, illegal and against the provisions of law and therefore, the same may be quashed and set aside. He has further submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts, present petition may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents have submitted that the respondent authority has rightly passed the impugned order since the appointment of the petitioner is purely on temporary basis and therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned order passed by the respondent authority. 5. I have perused the documents and material placed on record. From the record, it appears that respondent No. 1 has rejected the representation of the petitioner by way of communication at annexure-J of the petition dated 12.2.2007, whereby respondent No. 1 has stated that the appointment of present petitioner is purely on temporary basis and in the appointment order, as per condition no. 2, it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner will not claim any permanent employment and consequential benefits on the basis of the appointment order. 6. Further, the said order is passed way back in 2006 and then the representation made by the petitioner was also decided by the respondent on 12.2.2007. Almost 17 years have been passed and since last 17 years the petitioner is out of employment. 7. Moreover, the appointment of the petitioner was made by the collector without calling any name from the Employment Exchange and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right on the post of peon. The petitioner was not appointed in any prescribed pay scale and he was appointed purely as daily wager for 29 days and therefore, petitioner is also not entitled to any pay scale as prayed for in the petition. The petitioner was not appointed in any prescribed pay scale and he was appointed purely as daily wager for 29 days and therefore, petitioner is also not entitled to any pay scale as prayed for in the petition. The petitioner was not appointed as permanent employee and therefore, as per Article 309 of the Constitution of India, any right of the petitioner is not established in the office of the respondent and therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get any benefits as prayed for in present petition. 8. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of any merits and the same is required to be dismissed. Accordingly the petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.