High Court · 2025

5. The writ petition was filed by the respondent aggrieved of the order dated 31.08.2018 inter alia rejecting/disposing of the representation made by the respondent seeking regularization of his services from 28.12.2001 and for grant of first and second ACPs based on the said regularization.

6. The respondent joined on the post of Chair Reckoner on

19.02.1998 on ad-hoc basis pursuant to order of appointment dated 12.02.1998 in the pay-scale of Rs.2550 - 3200/- as a physically challenged person (visually challenged). By order dated 28.12.2001, the services of the respondent were confirmed, however, on 19.10.2010, an order was passed indicating that the order dated 28.12.2001 was wrongly passed, which was cancelled on the next day, i.e. 20.10.2010, whereby the services of the respondent along with others were regularized with immediate effect.

7. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 20.10.2010, the respondent approached this Court by filing Service Single No.28718 of 2017. The learned Single Judge, after perusal of the orders dated 19.10.2010 and 20.10.2010 came to the conclusion that the respondent was to be treated as 'regularized' by order dated 28.12.2001, but due to error, he was mentioned as having been confirmed, which mistake was rectified by passing the order dated 20.10.2010 and, therefore, there was error in the said order.

8. Qua the prayer seeking grant of ACP, the respondent was required to file a representation. The representation filed, pursuant to the order dated 28.11.2017, came to be rejected by the impugned order, i.e. 31.08.2018 for inter alia holding that the regularization took place with effect from 20.10.2010 and not 28.12.2001 as claimed and, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to any relief.

9. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in the earlier writ petition was clear and specific which became final as the same was not challenged and, therefore, it was not open for the State to contend otherwise and consequently granted the directions as noticed hereinbefore.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants made vehement submissions that a bare look at the order dated 20.10.2010 would reveal that the regularization was made from the date of order and, therefore, the determination made, i.e. the same was with effect from 28.12.2001 and consequential directions, cannot be countenanced and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.

11. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

12. The order dated 20.10.2010 passed by the appellants was questioned by filing writ petition before this Court and the learned Single Judge by his order dated 28.11.2017 inter alia came to the conclusion and directed as under: "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records it transpires that while regularizing the services of the petitioners who are physically disabled persons being blind, due to inadvertence instead of mentioning 'regularization' the word 'confirmation' was mentioned in the order dated 28.12.2001, therefore, it is this error which was rectified by the order dated 19.10.2010 and accordingly another order was passed on 20.10.2010 by which they were treated as 'confirmed' with effect from 20.10.2010 after treating them as 'regularized' with effect from 28.12.2001. On a bare perusal of the two orders it is evident that the petitioners were to be treated as 'regularized' by the order dated 28.12.2001, but due to error they were mentioned as having been 'confirmed', which has been rectified as aforesaid, therefore, there is no error in the impugned order. As regards the contention of the petitioners that they have not been granted financial upgradations under the Assured Progression Scheme, they may represent to the concerned authority who shall consider the matter as per the policy applicable and take appropriate decision in this regard within 2 months from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted. The petition is disposed off in the above terms."

13. A perusal of the above order would reveal that the learned Single Judge clearly observed that in the order dated

28.12.2001 instead of confirmed, regularized be read and refused to interfere with the said order. The order admittedly has become final and once the learned Single Judge had put a particular interpretation to the order dated 28.12.2001 in a challenge laid by the respondent, which is in his favour, the same cannot be negated now in absence of any challenge to the order dated 28.11.2017, which at the relevant time became final.

14. The directions given by learned Single Judge in the present matter, are in consonance with the determination made earlier on 28.11.2017 and, therefore, no interference is called for in the present appeal.

15. The appeal has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 RK (Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

5. The writ petition was filed by the respondent aggrieved of the order dated 31.08.2018 inter alia rejecting/disposing of the representation made by the respondent seeking regularization of his services from 28.12.2001 and for grant of first and second ACPs based on the said regularization.

6. The respondent joined on the post of Chair Reckoner on

19.02.1998 on ad-hoc basis pursuant to order of appointment dated 12.02.1998 in the pay-scale of Rs.2550 - 3200/- as a physically challenged person (visually challenged). By order dated 28.12.2001, the services of the respondent were confirmed, however, on 19.10.2010, an order was passed indicating that the order dated 28.12.2001 was wrongly passed, which was cancelled on the next day, i.e. 20.10.2010, whereby the services of the respondent along with others were regularized with immediate effect.

7. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 20.10.2010, the respondent approached this Court by filing Service Single No.28718 of 2017. The learned Single Judge, after perusal of the orders dated 19.10.2010 and 20.10.2010 came to the conclusion that the respondent was to be treated as 'regularized' by order dated 28.12.2001, but due to error, he was mentioned as having been confirmed, which mistake was rectified by passing the order dated 20.10.2010 and, therefore, there was error in the said order.

8. Qua the prayer seeking grant of ACP, the respondent was required to file a representation. The representation filed, pursuant to the order dated 28.11.2017, came to be rejected by the impugned order, i.e. 31.08.2018 for inter alia holding that the regularization took place with effect from 20.10.2010 and not 28.12.2001 as claimed and, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to any relief.

9. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in the earlier writ petition was clear and specific which became final as the same was not challenged and, therefore, it was not open for the State to contend otherwise and consequently granted the directions as noticed hereinbefore.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants made vehement submissions that a bare look at the order dated 20.10.2010 would reveal that the regularization was made from the date of order and, therefore, the determination made, i.e. the same was with effect from 28.12.2001 and consequential directions, cannot be countenanced and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.

11. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

12. The order dated 20.10.2010 passed by the appellants was questioned by filing writ petition before this Court and the learned Single Judge by his order dated 28.11.2017 inter alia came to the conclusion and directed as under: "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records it transpires that while regularizing the services of the petitioners who are physically disabled persons being blind, due to inadvertence instead of mentioning 'regularization' the word 'confirmation' was mentioned in the order dated 28.12.2001, therefore, it is this error which was rectified by the order dated 19.10.2010 and accordingly another order was passed on 20.10.2010 by which they were treated as 'confirmed' with effect from 20.10.2010 after treating them as 'regularized' with effect from 28.12.2001. On a bare perusal of the two orders it is evident that the petitioners were to be treated as 'regularized' by the order dated 28.12.2001, but due to error they were mentioned as having been 'confirmed', which has been rectified as aforesaid, therefore, there is no error in the impugned order. As regards the contention of the petitioners that they have not been granted financial upgradations under the Assured Progression Scheme, they may represent to the concerned authority who shall consider the matter as per the policy applicable and take appropriate decision in this regard within 2 months from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted. The petition is disposed off in the above terms."

13. A perusal of the above order would reveal that the learned Single Judge clearly observed that in the order dated

28.12.2001 instead of confirmed, regularized be read and refused to interfere with the said order. The order admittedly has become final and once the learned Single Judge had put a particular interpretation to the order dated 28.12.2001 in a challenge laid by the respondent, which is in his favour, the same cannot be negated now in absence of any challenge to the order dated 28.11.2017, which at the relevant time became final.

14. The directions given by learned Single Judge in the present matter, are in consonance with the determination made earlier on 28.11.2017 and, therefore, no interference is called for in the present appeal.

15. The appeal has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 RK (Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench