HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD v. Counsel for

4. Accordingly, the writ petition against him is dismissed as withdrawn. In Re: Civil Misc. Withdrawal Application No. 22 of 2024

5. By way of the present withdrawal application, the writ petitioner no. 55, Prem Chandra Dubey son of Sri Ram Surat Dubey seeks to withdraw the present petition.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition against him is dismissed as withdrawn. Order on Petition

7. Heard Sri B.D. Pandey, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Sri P.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2 WRIA No. 60837 of 2015

8. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit and the petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition be decided at the admission stage.

9. The case of the writ petitioners is that the writ petitioners no. 1 to 67 were appointed as Ayurvedic Pharmacist while petitioners no. 68 to 83 were appointed as Unani Pharmacist. The dates of appointment has been recapitulated in para 5 of the petition which reads as under.-

7.3.1991

19.2.1991

20.3.1991

20.3.1991

10.5.1991

17.6.1991

20.6.1991

20.6.1991

22.4.1991

8.4.1991

8.2.1991

7.3.1991

7.3.1991

22.5.1995

31.12.1994

10.1.1994

19.8.1993

27.9.1993

7.3.1991

19.8.1993

15.12.1994

7.3.1991

7.3.1991

8.4.1991

16.12.1989

21.3.1991

20.3.1991

31.1.1992

7.3.1991

6.2.1995

20.3.1991

22.6.1995

25.3.1991

7.3.1991

6.2.1992

16.6.1995

6.2.1995

7.3.1991

7.3.1991

7.3.1991

15.12.1994

8.4.1991

12.8.1994

7.3.1991 3 WRIA No. 60837 of 2015

20.6.1991

7.3.1991

20.3.1991

8.7.1991

8.4.1991

3.5.1995

7.3.1991

7.3.1991

7.3.1991

25.2.1995

10.10.1994

28.1.1994

7.10.1994

19.8.1993

28.9.1994

7.3.1991

14.10.1991

12.2.1992

19.10.1991

16.10.1991

3.12.1994

20.6.1991

31.12.1994

8.4.1991

7.3.1991

17.3.1991

7.3.1991

7.3.1991

20.6.1991

7.3.1991

18.5.1992

25.3.1991

20.5.1992

8.2.1991

20.9.1995

26.8.1994

28.2.1994

26.8.1994

10.1.1994

10. According to the writ petitioners their date of initial appointment are discharging the duties to the utmost satisfaction of the superiors on ad hoc basis, however, in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Governor was pleased to amend the rule by the name and nomenclature of Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments (on post outside the purview of Public Service Commission) (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2001. The relevant extract whereof is quoted as under.- "Sub-rule as hereby substituted (1) Any person who-- 4 WRIA No. 60837 of 2015 (i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before June 30, 1998 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001. (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time of such ad hoc appointment, and (iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years service shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available, on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant rules or orders."

11. The case of the writ petitioners is that since the writ petitioners were fully eligible and qualified in all respects, thus, four separate orders came to be passed on 06.06.2007, 25.08.2008, 23.04.2012 and 25.03.2013 according regularization to the writ petitioners from the date of issuance of the order. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that in view of the provisions contained under Rule 4, the cut of date was June 30, 1998 according to which those who were directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before June 30, 1998 and were continuing in service as such on the date of the commencement of Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad hoc Appointment (on post outside the purview of Public Service Commission) (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2001 which came into effect from 20.12.2001 and they possessed requisite qualifications which was earmarked for regular appointment and had completed 3 years service were to be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the basis of the record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant rules or orders. Submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is that once the writ petitioners are fully eligible and qualified and their appointment is much anterior to the cut of date June 30, 1998 and they were in service on 20.12.2001 then they were entitled to be considered for regularization from the date which was earmarked in the rules and not on the dates when they have been regularized. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners has invited the attention of the Court towards para 34 of the writ petition so as to contend that similarly situated 5 WRIA No. 60837 of 2015 incumbents have been accorded benefits. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner seeks to rely upon the judgment in the case of State of U.P. & 2 others Vs. Chandra Mohan Yadav Retired Junior Engineer Civil Nagar Nigam Allahabad : (2025) 0 Supreme Court (All) 2326.

12. Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to treat the writ petitioners advice on the post of Ayurvedic/Unani Pharmacist with effect from the date of initial appointment or at least with effect from 20.12.2001 with all consequential benefits thereof.

13. Sri P.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel while countering the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners has sought to argue that once the writ petitioners have been bestowed with the benefits of the regularization in terms of 2001 Rules with effect from the date of issuance of the orders dated 06.06.2007, 25.08.2008, 23.04.2012,

25.03.2013 then nothing remains to be further to be granted to the writ petitioners, however, he could not dispute the fact that as per the dates so noticed above, the appointment of the writ petitioners on ad hoc basis appears to be anterior to the cut of date June 30, 1998 and on the date of issuance of the enforcement of the 2001 Rules on 02.12.2001 they claim to be regularized in service and that is why in terms of the said rule they were accorded regularization from the date 06.06.2007, 25.08.2008, 23.04.2012,

25.03.2013 and the claims of the writ petitioner shall be considered by competent authority in accordance with law.

14. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

15. Apparently, the case of the writ petitioners is that they have been appointed on ad hoc basis as Ayurvedic/Unani Pharmacist i.e. prior to the cut of date 30.06.1998 and the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad hoc Appointment (on post outside the purview of Public Service Commission) (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2001 came into effect from 20.12.2001 and the claim of the writ petitioners on the date of the enforcement of the rule also they were in service, thus, they are entitled to be accorded benefits in terms of the Rules and not on the dates on which they have been accorded regularization. Since it is the grievance of the writ petitioners that their claim in accordance with the said rules has not been considered, thus, the writ 6 WRIA No. 60837 of 2015 petition is being decided in the following terms.- (a) writ petitioners shall file self attested copy of the writ petition, certified copy of the order before the second respondent, Director Ayurvedic Services U.P., Lucknow/third respondent, Director, Unani Services, U.P. Lucknow by

27.10.2025; (b) on the said motion, the authorities who are competent shall examine the claim of the writ petitioners in the light of the provisions contained under the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad hoc Appointment (on post outside the purview of Public Service Commission) (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2001; (c) in case, any inputs were required from the writ petitioners then the writ petitioners shall apprised and informed about the requirement to be fulfilled by them within a further period of 10 days the writ petitioner shall fulfill the requirements within a period of two weeks, thereafter; (d) thereafter, the competent authority shall decide the claim of the writ petitioners within a period of three months thereafter.

16. Needless to point out that the benefit of this order shall not be applicable to the writ petitioner nos. 16 and 56 against whom the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by virtue of the order dated 16.09.2021 and also against the writ petitioner nos. 55, 82 and 83 who writ petitions was dismissed as withdrawn today itself. October 8, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.) RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

4. Accordingly, the writ petition against him is dismissed as withdrawn. In Re: Civil Misc. Withdrawal Application No. 22 of 2024

5. By way of the present withdrawal application, the writ petitioner no. 55, Prem Chandra Dubey son of Sri Ram Surat Dubey seeks to withdraw the present petition.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition against him is dismissed as withdrawn. Order on Petition

7. Heard Sri B.D. Pandey, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Sri P.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2 WRIA No. 60837 of 2015

8. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit and the petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition be decided at the admission stage.

9. The case of the writ petitioners is that the writ petitioners no. 1 to 67 were appointed as Ayurvedic Pharmacist while petitioners no. 68 to 83 were appointed as Unani Pharmacist. The dates of appointment has been recapitulated in para 5 of the petition which reads as under.-

7.3.1991

19.2.1991

20.3.1991

20.3.1991

10.5.1991

17.6.1991

20.6.1991

20.6.1991

22.4.1991

8.4.1991

8.2.1991

7.3.1991

7.3.1991

22.5.1995

31.12.1994

10.1.1994

19.8.1993

27.9.1993

7.3.1991

19.8.1993

15.12.1994

7.3.1991

7.3.1991

8.4.1991

16.12.1989

21.3.1991

20.3.1991

31.1.1992

7.3.1991

6.2.1995

20.3.1991

22.6.1995

25.3.1991

7.3.1991

6.2.1992

16.6.1995

6.2.1995

7.3.1991

7.3.1991

7.3.1991

15.12.1994

8.4.1991

12.8.1994

7.3.1991 3 WRIA No. 60837 of 2015

20.6.1991

7.3.1991

20.3.1991

8.7.1991

8.4.1991

3.5.1995

7.3.1991

7.3.1991

7.3.1991

25.2.1995

10.10.1994

28.1.1994

7.10.1994

19.8.1993

28.9.1994

7.3.1991

14.10.1991

12.2.1992

19.10.1991

16.10.1991

3.12.1994

20.6.1991

31.12.1994

8.4.1991

7.3.1991

17.3.1991

7.3.1991

7.3.1991

20.6.1991

7.3.1991

18.5.1992

25.3.1991

20.5.1992

8.2.1991

20.9.1995

26.8.1994

28.2.1994

26.8.1994

10.1.1994

10. According to the writ petitioners their date of initial appointment are discharging the duties to the utmost satisfaction of the superiors on ad hoc basis, however, in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Governor was pleased to amend the rule by the name and nomenclature of Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments (on post outside the purview of Public Service Commission) (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2001. The relevant extract whereof is quoted as under.- "Sub-rule as hereby substituted (1) Any person who-- 4 WRIA No. 60837 of 2015 (i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before June 30, 1998 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001. (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time of such ad hoc appointment, and (iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years service shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available, on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant rules or orders."

11. The case of the writ petitioners is that since the writ petitioners were fully eligible and qualified in all respects, thus, four separate orders came to be passed on 06.06.2007, 25.08.2008, 23.04.2012 and 25.03.2013 according regularization to the writ petitioners from the date of issuance of the order. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that in view of the provisions contained under Rule 4, the cut of date was June 30, 1998 according to which those who were directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before June 30, 1998 and were continuing in service as such on the date of the commencement of Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad hoc Appointment (on post outside the purview of Public Service Commission) (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2001 which came into effect from 20.12.2001 and they possessed requisite qualifications which was earmarked for regular appointment and had completed 3 years service were to be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the basis of the record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant rules or orders. Submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is that once the writ petitioners are fully eligible and qualified and their appointment is much anterior to the cut of date June 30, 1998 and they were in service on 20.12.2001 then they were entitled to be considered for regularization from the date which was earmarked in the rules and not on the dates when they have been regularized. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners has invited the attention of the Court towards para 34 of the writ petition so as to contend that similarly situated 5 WRIA No. 60837 of 2015 incumbents have been accorded benefits. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner seeks to rely upon the judgment in the case of State of U.P. & 2 others Vs. Chandra Mohan Yadav Retired Junior Engineer Civil Nagar Nigam Allahabad : (2025) 0 Supreme Court (All) 2326.

12. Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to treat the writ petitioners advice on the post of Ayurvedic/Unani Pharmacist with effect from the date of initial appointment or at least with effect from 20.12.2001 with all consequential benefits thereof.

13. Sri P.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel while countering the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners has sought to argue that once the writ petitioners have been bestowed with the benefits of the regularization in terms of 2001 Rules with effect from the date of issuance of the orders dated 06.06.2007, 25.08.2008, 23.04.2012,

25.03.2013 then nothing remains to be further to be granted to the writ petitioners, however, he could not dispute the fact that as per the dates so noticed above, the appointment of the writ petitioners on ad hoc basis appears to be anterior to the cut of date June 30, 1998 and on the date of issuance of the enforcement of the 2001 Rules on 02.12.2001 they claim to be regularized in service and that is why in terms of the said rule they were accorded regularization from the date 06.06.2007, 25.08.2008, 23.04.2012,

25.03.2013 and the claims of the writ petitioner shall be considered by competent authority in accordance with law.

14. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

15. Apparently, the case of the writ petitioners is that they have been appointed on ad hoc basis as Ayurvedic/Unani Pharmacist i.e. prior to the cut of date 30.06.1998 and the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad hoc Appointment (on post outside the purview of Public Service Commission) (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2001 came into effect from 20.12.2001 and the claim of the writ petitioners on the date of the enforcement of the rule also they were in service, thus, they are entitled to be accorded benefits in terms of the Rules and not on the dates on which they have been accorded regularization. Since it is the grievance of the writ petitioners that their claim in accordance with the said rules has not been considered, thus, the writ 6 WRIA No. 60837 of 2015 petition is being decided in the following terms.- (a) writ petitioners shall file self attested copy of the writ petition, certified copy of the order before the second respondent, Director Ayurvedic Services U.P., Lucknow/third respondent, Director, Unani Services, U.P. Lucknow by

27.10.2025; (b) on the said motion, the authorities who are competent shall examine the claim of the writ petitioners in the light of the provisions contained under the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad hoc Appointment (on post outside the purview of Public Service Commission) (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2001; (c) in case, any inputs were required from the writ petitioners then the writ petitioners shall apprised and informed about the requirement to be fulfilled by them within a further period of 10 days the writ petitioner shall fulfill the requirements within a period of two weeks, thereafter; (d) thereafter, the competent authority shall decide the claim of the writ petitioners within a period of three months thereafter.

16. Needless to point out that the benefit of this order shall not be applicable to the writ petitioner nos. 16 and 56 against whom the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by virtue of the order dated 16.09.2021 and also against the writ petitioner nos. 55, 82 and 83 who writ petitions was dismissed as withdrawn today itself. October 8, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.) RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad