Ajit Kumar Saxena v. State Of U.P.Thru.Secy.Deptt.Of Medicalandedu.Civil Sectt.Andors

Jaiswal, Deepika Srivastava, Mamta Singh, Prashant Jaiswal, Siya Ram Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Prashant Jaiswal, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 29.01.2014 with also prayer for issuance of direction to opposite parties to provide consequential benefits arising out of regularization of petitioner's services and in terms of judgment and order dated 12.09.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.6760(S/S) of 2007.

3. Earlier on 11.07.2025, the following order had been passed:- "1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 29.01.2014 whereby petitioner's claim for regularization has been rejected. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to provide all consequential benefits to petitioner have also been sought.

3. During pendency of this petition, the original petitioner has passed away and his widow has been substituted.

4. From a perusal of material on record, it appears that original petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 5857 (SS) of 1992 challenging oral communication of termination of his services. It also appears that concomitant prayer for regularization of services was also sought on the basis that he was initially appointed on daily wage basis on 18.09.1989 and continued as such till notification of the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group-C Posts (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public Services Commission) Rules, 1998.

5. The said petition was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 13.02.2004 clearly holding the oral order of termination to be bad in law once petitioner had been appointed by 2 WRIA No. 15538 of 2018 written order. A further writ in the nature of mandamus was also issued commanding of the authorities concerned to consider petitioner's case for regularization in terms of Rules of 1998 ignoring the oral termination order.

6. It appears that when petitioner's case was not considered, he filed Contempt Petition No. 305 (C) of 2005, during pendency of which he was provided a fresh appointment w.e.f.

14.09.2006 due to which the contempt petition was dismissed on 15.12.2006 granting liberty to petitioner to raise his grievances in another writ petition. In pursuance thereof, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6760 (SS) of 2007 again seeking a prayer for regularization of services after giving benefit of past services w.e.f. 18.09.1989. The said petition was also allowed by means of judgment and order dated 12.09.2013 with specific direction to opposite parties to treat petitioner to be regularized under the regularization rules and furthermore that petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits taking into account his past services admissible under law.

7. It has been submitted that subsequent to the aforesaid judgment and order, which attained finality since it was never challenged, impugned order dated 29.01.2014 has been passed rejecting petitioner's claim for regularization. It is submitted that impugned order has been passed as if the authority concerned was sitting in appeal over judgment rendered by this Court.

8. From the record it appears that by means of judgment and order dated 12.09.2013, the entire aspects pertaining to service dispute of petitioner has been considered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court whereafter a specific finding has been recorded that petitioner was entitled to be regularized in terms of the Rules of 1998 and therefore specific direction was issued to treat him to be regularized under the aforesaid rules and that he would be entitled to all consequential benefits taking into account past services.

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, once such a specific finding has been recorded by this Court in a judgment which has attained finality, it was without jurisdiction on the part of opposite party no.2 i.e. Director, Ayurvedic & Unani Services, Lucknow to have passed the impugned order rejecting petitioner's claim.

10. In such circumstances, list this case on 25.07.2025 at 02:15 PM in order to enable learned State Counsel to obtain fresh instructions as to whether the judgment and order dated

12.09.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 6760 (SS) of 2007 was ever assailed in appellate proceedings and if not, to bring on record any order passed by the concerned authority indicating compliance of judgment and order dated 12.09.2013. In case of failure to adhere to direction issued hereinabove. The opposite party no. 2 i.e. Director, Ayurvedic & Unani Services, Lucknow shall appear in person."

4. Subsequently, vide order dated 27.08.2025, this Court was apprised by learned State Counsel that authority concerned has passed an order dated 07.08.2025 providing retrospective regularization to petitioner with effect from 18.09.1989 but consequential benefits as from that date were not paid. 3 WRIA No. 15538 of 2018

5. Subsequently, it was again noticed in order dated 17.09.2025 that certain other documents were required from petitioner who was granted liberty to bring the same on record and in pursuance thereof a supplementary affidavit was provided to learned State Counsel who was required to intimate this Court the consequential action taken by competent authority.

6. In pursuance thereof, written instructions dated 12.11.2025, a copy of which are taken on record, have been provided to learned State Counsel and states that retrospective regularization has already been accorded to petitioner with effect from 18.09.1989. The instructions also indicate that all the outstanding retiral benefits due to late Ajit Kumar Saxena would be provided to his widow Smt. Santosh Saxena, who has already been provided benefits of G.I.S. and earned leave. The instructions also indicate that proceedings for payment of remaining dues are underway and shall be cleared shortly.

7. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 29.01.2014 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in nature of Mandamus is issued commanding opposite parties collectively to ensure payment of all the remaining and outstanding dues to petitioner expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon authority concerned.

8. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 12, 2025 kvg/- (Manish Mathur,J.) GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jaiswal, Deepika Srivastava, Mamta Singh, Prashant Jaiswal, Siya Ram Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Prashant Jaiswal, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 29.01.2014 with also prayer for issuance of direction to opposite parties to provide consequential benefits arising out of regularization of petitioner's services and in terms of judgment and order dated 12.09.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.6760(S/S) of 2007.

3. Earlier on 11.07.2025, the following order had been passed:- "1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 29.01.2014 whereby petitioner's claim for regularization has been rejected. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to provide all consequential benefits to petitioner have also been sought.

3. During pendency of this petition, the original petitioner has passed away and his widow has been substituted.

4. From a perusal of material on record, it appears that original petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 5857 (SS) of 1992 challenging oral communication of termination of his services. It also appears that concomitant prayer for regularization of services was also sought on the basis that he was initially appointed on daily wage basis on 18.09.1989 and continued as such till notification of the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group-C Posts (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public Services Commission) Rules, 1998.

5. The said petition was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 13.02.2004 clearly holding the oral order of termination to be bad in law once petitioner had been appointed by 2 WRIA No. 15538 of 2018 written order. A further writ in the nature of mandamus was also issued commanding of the authorities concerned to consider petitioner's case for regularization in terms of Rules of 1998 ignoring the oral termination order.

6. It appears that when petitioner's case was not considered, he filed Contempt Petition No. 305 (C) of 2005, during pendency of which he was provided a fresh appointment w.e.f.

14.09.2006 due to which the contempt petition was dismissed on 15.12.2006 granting liberty to petitioner to raise his grievances in another writ petition. In pursuance thereof, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6760 (SS) of 2007 again seeking a prayer for regularization of services after giving benefit of past services w.e.f. 18.09.1989. The said petition was also allowed by means of judgment and order dated 12.09.2013 with specific direction to opposite parties to treat petitioner to be regularized under the regularization rules and furthermore that petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits taking into account his past services admissible under law.

7. It has been submitted that subsequent to the aforesaid judgment and order, which attained finality since it was never challenged, impugned order dated 29.01.2014 has been passed rejecting petitioner's claim for regularization. It is submitted that impugned order has been passed as if the authority concerned was sitting in appeal over judgment rendered by this Court.

8. From the record it appears that by means of judgment and order dated 12.09.2013, the entire aspects pertaining to service dispute of petitioner has been considered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court whereafter a specific finding has been recorded that petitioner was entitled to be regularized in terms of the Rules of 1998 and therefore specific direction was issued to treat him to be regularized under the aforesaid rules and that he would be entitled to all consequential benefits taking into account past services.

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, once such a specific finding has been recorded by this Court in a judgment which has attained finality, it was without jurisdiction on the part of opposite party no.2 i.e. Director, Ayurvedic & Unani Services, Lucknow to have passed the impugned order rejecting petitioner's claim.

10. In such circumstances, list this case on 25.07.2025 at 02:15 PM in order to enable learned State Counsel to obtain fresh instructions as to whether the judgment and order dated

12.09.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 6760 (SS) of 2007 was ever assailed in appellate proceedings and if not, to bring on record any order passed by the concerned authority indicating compliance of judgment and order dated 12.09.2013. In case of failure to adhere to direction issued hereinabove. The opposite party no. 2 i.e. Director, Ayurvedic & Unani Services, Lucknow shall appear in person."

4. Subsequently, vide order dated 27.08.2025, this Court was apprised by learned State Counsel that authority concerned has passed an order dated 07.08.2025 providing retrospective regularization to petitioner with effect from 18.09.1989 but consequential benefits as from that date were not paid. 3 WRIA No. 15538 of 2018

5. Subsequently, it was again noticed in order dated 17.09.2025 that certain other documents were required from petitioner who was granted liberty to bring the same on record and in pursuance thereof a supplementary affidavit was provided to learned State Counsel who was required to intimate this Court the consequential action taken by competent authority.

6. In pursuance thereof, written instructions dated 12.11.2025, a copy of which are taken on record, have been provided to learned State Counsel and states that retrospective regularization has already been accorded to petitioner with effect from 18.09.1989. The instructions also indicate that all the outstanding retiral benefits due to late Ajit Kumar Saxena would be provided to his widow Smt. Santosh Saxena, who has already been provided benefits of G.I.S. and earned leave. The instructions also indicate that proceedings for payment of remaining dues are underway and shall be cleared shortly.

7. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 29.01.2014 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in nature of Mandamus is issued commanding opposite parties collectively to ensure payment of all the remaining and outstanding dues to petitioner expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon authority concerned.

8. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 12, 2025 kvg/- (Manish Mathur,J.) GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench