HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15214 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Dhananjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner was appointed as Jail Warder/ Bandi Rakshak on temporary basis on 22.02.1989 and he was regularised on 10.06.1990, however, his services were terminated without issuing show cause notice on 23.01.1991, which constrained the writ petitioner to prefer Writ Petition No.3501 of 1991 questioning the termination order. The said writ petition came to be allowed on 10.04.2005. Subsequently, on 05.05.2005, the Senior Superintendent of District Jail, Jhansi passed an order regularizing the services of the writ petitioner from the date of the order passed in the writ petition. The writ petitioner preferred a representation raising a claim that he should be considered for regularization from 03.06.1990 and thereafter certain orders came to be passed on 05.05.2005 and 16.07.2005 by the Senior Superintendent of District Jail Jhansi granting regularization from the date of order passed in the writ petition, which was subject matter of challenge in Writ-A No.35680 of 2014, Ajai Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein the said orders were set aside and the petitioner was treated to have been regularized in service w.e.f. 10.06.1990 against which a Special Appeal Defective No.146 of 2024 was preferred by the State, which came to be dismissed on 26.02.2024. Thereafter a Special Leave Petition also preferred which also came to be dismissed. However, while the petitioner was posted on 16.08.2005, a show cause notice came to be issued on 18.08.2005 by the Senior Jail Superintendent Jhansi whereby it was alleged that the petitioner was sleeping during duty hours and he was show caused, to which the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dhananjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ajay Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) petitioner submitted his reply, pursuant whereto an order came to be passed on 21.08.2025 awarding censure entry. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the entire action of the respondents is nothing but vindictive just in order to forestall the promotion prospects of the writ petitioner, as he is to superannuate on 31.12.2025. Submission is that the writ petitioner was alert in his duty and further he has given a specific reply. However, he has conveniently avoided and skipped. 3. Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the order which is subject matter of challenge is appealable under Rule 11 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999. 4. To such a submission, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner may approach the appellate authority, but the only anxiety is that the appeal be decided prior to his retirement. 5. Considering the submissions so made across the Bar, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed of leaving it open to the writ petitioner to file an appeal under Rule 11 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 by 17.10.2025 and on the said motion, the Appellate Authority shall make an endeavour to decide the appeal within one month subject to cooperation of the parties. October 9, 2025 N.S.Rathour WRIA No. 15214 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad