JUDGMENT : Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.-Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Usha Kiran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division-II, Muzaffar Nagar dated the 24th of October, 2019, rejecting the petitioner's claim for arrears of salary upon proper determination and directing recovery of emoluments paid in excess to him. 3. This case has a long and chequered history as much litigation has preceded the present cause, all of which have led to the order impugned. It must be remarked at the outset that pleadings in the writ petition about the petitioner's case are far from complete and wholesome. These present a disjunct picture, a version so flickering and fleeting that unless one looks to the counter-affidavit and takes aid of the oral submissions advanced, the petitioner's case would just be an unintelligible jumble of facts. 4. The petitioner was engaged as a muster roll employee on 19.12.1997 by the ex-Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short, 'the Board'), the predecessor of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow (for short, 'the Corporation') and the various Distribution Corporations, amongst others. The petitioner came to be retrenched on 20.11.1978 for reason that the Board had placed a ban on engagement of muster roll employees. An industrial dispute was raised by the Union, of which the petitioner was a member, questioning the retrenchment. It led to the registration of Adjudication Case No. 77 of 1990 on the file of the Labour Court, Muzaffar Nagar. In the adjudication case, the reference came to be answered in favour of the workmen directing their reinstatement with back-wages. 5. The aforesaid award passed by the Labour Court was challenged by the Board by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30070 of 1991, which was heard and dismissed by this Court. The Board appealed by petitioning the Supreme Court for special leave. The Supreme Court granted leave and allowed Civil Appeal No. 4889 of 1993, arising out of SLP (C) No. 844 of 1993 in terms that the award passed by the Labour Court and upheld by this Court was modified to the extent alone that instead of reinstatement with full back-wages, it was granted with 10% back-wages. The Supreme Court granted leave and allowed Civil Appeal No. 4889 of 1993, arising out of SLP (C) No. 844 of 1993 in terms that the award passed by the Labour Court and upheld by this Court was modified to the extent alone that instead of reinstatement with full back-wages, it was granted with 10% back-wages. It appears that the petitioner moved a contempt petition in Civil Appeal No. 4889 of 1993, or the Union moved it for his benefit, where the Supreme Court ordered on the 24th of March, 1995 that the petitioner will report to the Superintending Engineer on or before 3.4.1995 and join services, wherever he is asked to do by the said Engineer. As remarked earlier, none of the parties have brought to the notice of this Court the complete record of earlier proceedings, particularly those arising out of the industrial dispute, that culminated before the Supreme Court. It nevertheless appears that the petitioner filed Misc. Case under the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming wages as a regular employee. 6. The petitioner was reinstated in service pursuant to the direction made in the contempt petition, but was not paid back-wages at the rate of 10% from the date of the award passed by the Labour Court, as modified by the Supreme Court vide their Lordships' order dated 10.9.1993. The issue, regarding payment of back-wages and the rate it was payable, was agitated by the petitioner through an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, which was filed on 17.4.1995. The petitioner annexed a calculation chart to the said application, working out a sum of Rs. 2,59,048.83, which he claimed together with interest. The application was heard by the Labour Court, which allowed it in part to the extent of a sum of Rs. 1,01,608.12 and for the balance of Rs. 1,57,440.71, rejected it. This order was passed by the Labour Court on 10.9.1996. 7. The Labour Court's order last mentioned was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by means of Writ-C No. 4888 of 1997, and by the respondents as well, through Writ-C No. 38538 of 1996. 1,01,608.12 and for the balance of Rs. 1,57,440.71, rejected it. This order was passed by the Labour Court on 10.9.1996. 7. The Labour Court's order last mentioned was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by means of Writ-C No. 4888 of 1997, and by the respondents as well, through Writ-C No. 38538 of 1996. Whereas the petitioner in his writ petition claimed that the order be quashed and the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act allowed in toto, the respondents in their writ petition claimed that the order dated 10.9.1996 be quashed and accepted the petitioner's entitlement to back-wages, worked out at the rate of 10% in terms the award, as modified by the Supreme Court, determining it at a sum of Rs. 56,254/- for the period 21.11.1978 to 1.1.1993. The respondents' issue appeared to be that the petitioner was claiming back-wages equal to a regular employee on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', which was impermissible in proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Both the writ petitions were heard together and by a common judgment and order dated 6.7.2001, the petitioner's writ petition was dismissed and the one filed by the respondents allowed, quashing the order made by the Labour Court to the extent that it directed a sum of Rs. 1,01,608.12 to be paid in back-wages, worked out at the same rate as regular employees on the basis of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. It was held that the issue if juniors to the petitioner have been regularized in service and the petitioner entitled to emoluments equivalent to a regular employee, was beyond the scope of proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was noted that the petitioner was admittedly receiving a daily wage of Rs.11/- per day when retrenched. This Court opined that the petitioner's case that juniors to him have been regularized, entitling him to the same emoluments or regularization, is a matter to be gone into in an industrial dispute and not an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 8. The petitioner then raised an industrial dispute having failed in proceedings under Section 33-C(2), the dispute being formally raised on the petitioner's behalf by the Employees' Union. 8. The petitioner then raised an industrial dispute having failed in proceedings under Section 33-C(2), the dispute being formally raised on the petitioner's behalf by the Employees' Union. The following question was referred to the Labour Court by the Government vide order dated 12.4.2001 (translated into English from Hindi): ''Whether denial by the employers in not regularizing their muster roll SSO and not paying him emoluments accordingly, is proper and legal? If not, from which date and with what particulars? 9. On the basis of the aforesaid reference, Adjudication Case No. 21 of 2001 was registered on the file of the Labour Court, Meerut. The Labour Court answered the reference for the workman holding that he is entitled to be regularized on the post of an SSO (Sub-Station Operator) with effect from 20.11.1998, and further that with effect from the said date, the petitioner is entitled to salary and annual increment and other service benefits. This award was challenged by the respondents in Writ-C No. 1158 of 2004, praying that the award be quashed. The writ petition aforesaid was heard and decided vide judgment and order dated 26.10.2004 in the following terms: ''In above view of the matter, the impugned award cannot be sustained and is hereby set-aside. This, however, shall not prejudice the claim of the workman if he is entitled for consideration of regularisation in accordance with any order or scheme as applicable. Looking to the facts of the present case that the workman has been working for a quite long period with the petitioner, this order shall not prevent the workman to approach the petitioner for consideration of regularisation which may be considered and appropriate order may be passed in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs.'' 10. It appears from the record that the judgment and order of this Court dated 26.10.2004 passed in Writ-C No. 1158 of 2004 was not challenged by the petitioner and became final between parties. In between, an order was passed by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II, Muzaffar Nagar dated 8th November, 2008, saying that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 84,762.31 for the period 11.9.2006 to August, 2008, going by the minimum wages payable, in compliance with an order of the Managing Director of the Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (for short, 'the Distribution Corporation'). 84,762.31 for the period 11.9.2006 to August, 2008, going by the minimum wages payable, in compliance with an order of the Managing Director of the Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (for short, 'the Distribution Corporation'). While this was the state of the petitioner's rights, the petitioner taking a cue from the liberty given by this Court in the judgment and order dated 26.10.2004 to the effect that the setting aside of the Labour Court's award, directing regularization of the petitioner's services, would not disentitle the petitioner from seeking regularization in accordance with any order or scheme applicable, moved this Court through Writ-A No. 58156 of 2008, praying that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to regularize the petitioner's services on the post of a Sub-Station Operator, whereon he is working since 19.12.1977. A further direction was sought directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner from the month of November, 2003 onwards, admissible to a person holding the post of a Sub-Station Operator. 11. The petitioner relied on a circular issued by the Chief Engineer dated 20.8.1996, referring to an order of the Board dated 22.4.1996, by which records of muster roll employees, who had completed 10 years of service on 1.10.1986, were called by the Chairman of the Board for consideration of regularisation. The petitioner has also relied on a letter issued by the Executive Engineer in compliance with orders passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in writ petitions and contempt matters, apparently not filed by the petitioner, asking the petitioner's application for regularization or regular appointment to be submitted to the Corporation Headquarters with the three specified Annexures, whereafter the petitioner would have to appear before the Electricity Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation, Lucknow, latest by 17.9.2005. 12. Similarly, a number of schemes or circulars were relied upon by the petitioner to support his claim to regularization, in Writ-A No. 58156 of 2008. This writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 22.3.2023. It does not appear that any application to recall the order dated 22.3.2023, seeking restoration of the writ petition has been moved so far. 13. This writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 22.3.2023. It does not appear that any application to recall the order dated 22.3.2023, seeking restoration of the writ petition has been moved so far. 13. Another writ petition was subsequently filed in the year 2008 by the petitioner being Writ-A No. 66015 of 2008, claiming material reliefs, which can be best appreciated by a reproduction thereof verbatim: ''(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the regular salary of the petitioner as per chart (Annexure 6 of the writ petition) submitted before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Saharanpur and submitted alongwith the letter dated 20.5.2004 (Annexure 19 of the writ petition) and duly attested by the U.P. Power Corporation Limited; (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay arrears of salary alongwith the 18% interest per annum of the petitioner from 1.1.1993 as disclosed (Annexure 6 of the writ petition) also in the letter dated 20.5.2004 issued by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division-II, Patel Nagar, Muzaffarnagar on the post of Sub Station Operator;'' 14. This writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 7.12.2019, holding that the relief was no longer open in view of the judgment and order passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 1158 of 2004 on 26.10.2004, arising out of the award of the Labour Court, impugned in that case by the respondents. 15. The petitioner did not rest content with the dismissal of his last mentioned writ petition. Four other workmen, namely, Dharampal Singh, Rajpal Singh, Charan Singh and Harpal Singh, who were working as Coolies on daily-wages, raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, U.P., Saharanpur, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 116 of 2000 through their Union, where the reference was to the effect: If the four named workmen were entitled to the scale of a Coolie with effect from 1.1.1979? If yes, to what relief the workmen are entitled and on what terms? 16. The petitioner was not at all a party to this reference. The reference was answered in favour of the workmen by the Labour Court, holding that they were entitled to the scale of a Coolie with effect from 1.7.1979 vide award dated 11.9.2006. If yes, to what relief the workmen are entitled and on what terms? 16. The petitioner was not at all a party to this reference. The reference was answered in favour of the workmen by the Labour Court, holding that they were entitled to the scale of a Coolie with effect from 1.7.1979 vide award dated 11.9.2006. The aforesaid award was challenged by the respondents before this Court by means of Writ-C No. 30257 of 2007. Very logically, the petitioner was not a party to the aforesaid writ petition as well. The aforesaid award was upheld by this Court vide order dated 2.12.2013, entitling the workmen-respondents concerned in that writ petition (not the petitioner), who were Coolies to the regular pay-scale of a Coolie with effect from 1.1.1979. The petitioner claimed relief on the basis of the award and the judgment of this Court passed in Writ-C No. 30257 of 2007, though he was not a party to it. It appears that the petitioner sought to draw a misplaced parity from the said award as it related to daily-wager Coolies, claiming a regular pay-scale and not the petitioner, who, in any case, was employed on daily-wages as a Sub-Station Operator. 17. This was not the end of efforts by the petitioner to secure a regular pay-scale through some devious means, as it appears. The only means, through which he could have got regularized in service, was in terms of the judgment and order of this Court passed in Writ-C No. 1158 of 2004, where while setting aside the award passed in the petitioner's favour by the Labour Court directing regularization, the petitioner was given liberty, considering the long period that he had been working, to approach the respondents here, for consideration of his case for regularization, in accordance with any order or scheme applicable for the purpose. That option, the petitioner did not avail, but skirted it, as would be presently shown. Instead, he chose to rely deviously on the outcome of the industrial disputes raised by other workmen, which travelled up to this Court and the judgments rendered in case of those workmen with directions or results of kinds that were applicable to parties in that case; not the petitioner. One effort the petitioner made to secure a regular pay-scale on the basis of the judgment of this Court passed in Writ-C No. 30257 of 2007. One effort the petitioner made to secure a regular pay-scale on the basis of the judgment of this Court passed in Writ-C No. 30257 of 2007. The other was the apparently unfair advantage, that the petitioner took of the judgment and order dated 31.1.2017 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 61091 of 2013. Again to the said writ petition, the petitioner was not a party. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by three workmen, to wit, Dharampal Singh, Harpal Singh and Charan Singh, as the array of parties in the said petition would show. The relief claimed in the said writ petition by the concerned workmen, all of whom were working as muster roll Coolies, was to quash Conditions Nos. 3, 10, 13, 14 and 15, carried in order No. 5789 dated 12.7.2013, issued by the Chief Engineer on behalf of the Distribution Corporation to be fulfilled by the workmen mentioned in the said order, subject to which their cases for regularization would be considered. A mandamus was further claimed, seeking a direction to the respondents to add the period of service rendered as muster roll/work-charged employees to their regular service in the establishment, and further to pay all consequential benefits. A mandamus was also sought by the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition, directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners, equivalent to a regular employee from 8.10.1993 onwards. This petition was heard and dismissed by this Court, subject to the following remarks of the Court, carried in the judgment and order dated 31.1.2017: ''Condition to add the period of service of Muster Roll/Work Charge in the regular service of the petitioners and to pay all the consequential benefits is also liable to be rejected for the same reason. However at this stage Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that now the petitioners are entitled for minimum of pay-scale as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 . In the opinion of the Court, this aspect of the matter can be suitably considered by the respondent No. 1 (Executive Engineer Urban Electricity Distribution Division Ist, Towal Hall, Muzaffar Nagar). In the opinion of the Court, this aspect of the matter can be suitably considered by the respondent No. 1 (Executive Engineer Urban Electricity Distribution Division Ist, Towal Hall, Muzaffar Nagar). In such view of the matter, the present petition is dismissed, however with the observation that in case any such representation is filed by the petitioners alongwith certified copy of this order for the purpose of grant of minimum of the pay-scale in the light of the case of Jagjit Singh (supra), the same shall be considered and decided by the respondent No. 1 on its own merits, preferably within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations/directions. No order as to costs.'' 18. A perusal of the above order would show that this Court though dismissed the writ petition brought by the petitioners of Writ-A No. 61091 of 2013, but gave them liberty to represent their case to the respondents, claiming minimum pay-scale in keeping with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Jagjit Singh and others, (2017) 1 SCC 148 . Now, this was a liberty that was reserved for the writ petitioners of Writ-A No. 61091 of 2013 and not the petitioner at all. The liberty was short of consideration of the case for regularization, which had to be considered, if at all, in accordance with the order dated 12.7.2013 passed by the Distribution Corporation and subject to fulfilment of its conditions. The order dated 12.7.2013 was open to be availed by the petitioner also, as his name figures amongst the eligibles there together with the writ petitioners of Writ-A No. 61091 of 2013, provided the petitioner or any of the other workmen/daily-wagers mentioned there, fulfilled the Conditions Nos. 1 to 17, stipulated in that order. The relief, however, to be considered for grant of minimum pay-scale, bearing in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra), was limited to the petitioners of Writ-A No. 61091 of 2013; not the petitioner. 19. 1 to 17, stipulated in that order. The relief, however, to be considered for grant of minimum pay-scale, bearing in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra), was limited to the petitioners of Writ-A No. 61091 of 2013; not the petitioner. 19. It is the respondents' case that bearing in mind the directions in Writ-C No. 30257 of 2007, though the petitioner and other workmen, not parties were not entitled, to do equity to the petitioners as well as the other workmen, daily-wages were revised according to the U.P. Labour Department Circular dated 28.2.2007. The petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 84,776/- vide Cheque No. 239714 dated 21.11.2008. This relief was about the maintenance of parity in the matter of payment of minimum wages as revised from time to time and had nothing to do with payment of a regular pay-scale. The direction in Writ-C No. 30257 of 2007 was to pay the minimum pay-scale admissible to a Coolie in the regular establishment, to the workmen-respondents in the aforesaid writ petition, and that has nothing to do with the petitioner here. It also does not appear that the judgment and order passed in Writ-C No. 30257 of 2007 had much bearing on the rights of parties or falls for any further consideration about its effect here. 20. What is of importance is the fact that the petitioner did not fulfill, as the respondents say, conditions for consideration of his regularization in service carried in the order dated 12.7.2013 issued by the Distribution Corporation on one hand, and, on the other, pressed for consideration of his case for the grant of minimum pay-scale payable to an employee in the regular establishment, in accordance with the liberty given to represent to the petitioners of Writ-A No. 61091 of 2013. That liberty had been given to the petitioners of the aforesaid writ petition and not the petitioner. The respondents say that the petitioner filed a false affidavit dated 15.7.2017, saying that he filed Writ-A No. 61091 of 2013 before this Court, where this Court vide order dated 31.1.2017 directed that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the directions of the Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh, and that in compliance with the said direction, the respondents may take steps to grant him the necessary benefits. 21. 21. The respondents say that the said affidavit was false because the petitioner was not a party to Writ-A No. 61091 of 2013 at all. This Court has looked into the array of parties in Writ-A No. 61091 of 2013, which shows that it was filed by Dharampal Singh, Harpal Singh and Charan Singh, and not the petitioner, as already noted elsewhere in this judgment. This Court has also looked into the contents of the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the respondents, particularly, the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II, Muzaffar Nagar, where in paragraph No. 3 of the said affidavit, he has averred: 22. It is true that it is mentioned that a copy of the order passed in the said writ petition was forwarded, but it is not known if the entire array of parties was enclosed. It is asserted that it was a certified copy that was being forwarded, but it is certainly not known if it was indeed a certified copy. There are only two things about which this Court can be sure and that is that the petitioner was not a party to Writ-A No. 61091 of 2013, decided on 31.1.2017, and, the other is that he did falsely say on affidavit filed before the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II, Muzaffar Nagar that he was a party to Writ-A No. 61091 of 2013, entitled to the benefit of the order passed in the said case alongwith his co-petitioners. This assertion is false to its face and one that was made on oath deliberately to mislead the respondents, knowing it to be false. 23. It is the respondents' case that relying on the directions carried in the order dated 31.1.2017 passed in Writ-A No. 61091 of 2013 about liberty to the petitioners of the said petition to represent their case for the grant of minimum pay-scale in the light of the law laid down in Jagjit Singh, the respondents believing that the petitioner was also a party to the said writ petition, considered his case and granted him monetary relief leading to the payment of a sum of Rs. 7,31,373/- as arrears of salary, to which he was not entitled. 24. 7,31,373/- as arrears of salary, to which he was not entitled. 24. This Court has no option but to believe the aforesaid assertion of the respondents because the petitioner did say falsehood on his affidavit that he was a petitioner in Writ-A No. 61091 of 2013, whereas he was not at all so. It is with the recovery of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 7,31,373/- that one part of the impugned order dated 24.10.2019 is concerned. The other is about grant of regular pay-scale, that is to say, a pay-scale that was paid to a regular Sub-Station Operator and also arrears of salary on that account. By the impugned order, the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II, Muzaffar Nagar has rejected the petitioner's claim for the grant of a regular pay-scale and arrears on account of the difference between his wages and salary in the regular pay-scale. It has further directed recovery of the sum of Rs. 7,31,373/-, realized by the petitioner by misrepresenting that he was a petitioner in Writ-A No. 61091 of 2013. 25. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondents have laid emphasis on the point that they had offered the petitioner regularization in service in terms of the order dated 12.7.2013, subject to fulfillment of the conditions mentioned therein, but the petitioner did not choose to avail the said opportunity, as already remarked. There is a reference in this connection to a letter bearing No. 2124 dated 16th September, 2013, addressed to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II, Muzaffar Nagar, asking him to take steps in terms of the order dated 12.7.2013, but the petitioner did not take any effective steps to avail of the opportunity for regularization in service. This was also a relief that the petitioner could seek within the terms of the right, left open to him by the judgment and order dated 26.10.2004 passed in Writ-C No. 1158 of 2004. 26. So far as the claim for award of salary in the same pay-scale as a Sub-Station Operator in the regular establishment is concerned, there are elaborate remarks in the order impugned, which we think are well-founded to the effect that the petitioner does not hold qualifications equivalent to a Sub-Station Operator in the regular establishment nor does he do the same intricate technical jobs, which a regular Sub-Station Operator does. The technical differences in the jobs done by the petitioner, on one hand, and a regular Sub-Station Operator, on the other, have been traced out for every difference of it in all its detail. 27. There could be one possibility of considering the petitioner's claim for the respondents and that was that since the writ petitioners in Writ-A No. 61091 of 2013 have been directed to be considered for the payment of a regular pay-scale, short of regularization, the petitioner's case could have been dealt with on the same premises. But, as the reputed principle goes that an equitable relief can be invoked by one who comes to Court with clean hands. Here, the petitioner's motives are tainted with falsehood deep down his cause when he misrepresented before the respondents that he was a party alongwith the other petitioners in Writ-A No. 61091 of 2013, where directions to consider the petitioners' case on a representation made for the grant of a minimum pay-scale in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh were issued. The petitioner, as already said, was not at all a petitioner in the said petition and yet misrepresenting that he was succeeded in securing some monetary relief and payment of arrears to the tune of Rs. 7,31,373/-. This conduct of the petitioner, which he has also not at all explained before this Court, disentitles him to any equitable relief. 28. Before parting with this matter, this Court must place on record, for reasons that we have indicated in the opening part of the judgment about the disjunct pleadings of parties that we have looked into the scanned records of Writ-C No. 4888 of 1997, Writ-C No. 38538 of 1996, Writ-C No. 1158 of 2004, Writ-A No. 66015 of 2008, Writ-C No. 30257 of 2007, Writ-A No. 61091 of 2013 and the originals of Writ-A No. 58156 of 2008, to gather the various missing details in pleadings and particulars of the case of parties placed on record. 29. In the opinion of this Court, no case for grant of relief is made out. 30. This petition fails and is dismissed. 31. There shall be no order as to costs.