HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 17511 of 2024 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Kunal Shah, learned counsel for respondents - 2 and 3. 2. Petitioner was initially engaged as Casual Labour in respondent Corporation on 01.12.2001 and remained disengaged between 30.03.2002 and 20.04.2008. Thereafter, from 23.04.2008, petitioner has claimed that he is still working at Casual Labour at least till this writ petition was filed in the month of December, 2024. 3. Petitioner has approached this Court earlier by way of filing Writ A No. 8339 of 2024 that he may be regularized under the provisions of U.P. Regularization of Persons Working as a Daily Wages or On Work Charge or On Contract in Government Departments on Group C and Group D Outside the Purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission Rules, 2016, as adopted by the respondents – Corporation and writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 24.05.2024 to consider the case of petitioner for regularization. 4. In pursuance of above, impugned order dated 06.08.2024 was passed whereby his claim was deferred on a ground that a proposal send to State for creation of 260 supernumerary posts of Guard/Peon is still pending so that claim of petitioner and other similarly situated workers be considered in terms of above referred Rule. 5. It was also noted that petitioner remained disengaged for 6 years and 21 days and a list of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar, Prashant Shukla, Ram Prakash Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kunal Shah Vinay Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 41 casual workers were earlier considered for regularization, however, petitioner being lower in list was not considered. It was also referred that a Special Appeal is pending and on basis of its outcome, matter will be proceeded further. 6. Aforesaid order dated 06.08.2024 is under challenge in this writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was a regular employee and a break from 2002 to 2008 was an artificial break and by referring some judgments, he submits that aforesaid period of disengagement be considered whether it was a voluntary act on part of petitioner or he was prevented from working by the respondents. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned order and reiterated the reasons assigned in the impugned and has also referred judgments. 9. At this stage, Court finds that claim of petitioner is not rejected and a decision has been deferred subject to outcome of Special Appeal No. 426/2021 (U.P. State Warehousing Corporation and others vs. Arjun Kumar Sing and others) as well as matter is still consideration with State in regard to creation of 260 supernumerary posts as well as that petitioner appears to be still working, therefore, at this stage, since matter is deferred, hence, Court is not entering into merit of the case and it is disposed of with an observation that respondents- Corporation will consider the case of petitioner as soon as State creates supernumerary posts or on the basis of outcome of Special Appeal or after a period of six months taking note of judgments passed by this Court relied upon by both the parties specifically whether the gap was due to petitioner or due to respondents as well as if in other cases, such long disengagement was ignored. The respondents may also take note of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Dharam Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2025:INSC:998. September 2, 2025 N. Sinha WRIA No. 17511 of 2024 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad