Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23130 Court No. - 28 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7604 of 1989 Petitioner :- Aijaz Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A. Mannan,A.K. Chaturvedi,S.K. Srivastava,Sanjay Srivastava,Sarvesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. Orders on Application No.IA4 of 2025 This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the recall application. Cause shown is sufficient. Learned counsel for the opposite party has not filed any objection against condonation of delay therefore, delay in filing the recall application is condoned. The application is allowed. Orders on C.M. Application No.IA5 of 2025 Heard learned counsel for the applicant. This is an application for recall of the order dated 08.07.2014 whereby the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. Cause shown for non-appearance is sufficient. The order dated 08.07.2014 is hereby, recalled. The application is allowed. The writ petition is restored to its original number. Orders on Memo of writ petition Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jogendra Nath Verma, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out the earlier order dated 07.04.2025. Shri Jogendra Nath Verma, learned counsel has not disputed the contentions of the petitioner as the case is at par with the case of the similarly situated persons in Writ Petition (S/S) Nos.7071 of 1989, 7072 of 1989 and 7073 of 1989. Shri Verma has pointed out the order dated 28.12.2021 passed by the Managing Director, wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner did not work for some period when the present writ petition was dismissed in default and has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the salary of such period. Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner in which it has been stated that the case of the petitioner is covered by the benefit of the judgment and order dated 12.04.2016 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) Nos.7071 of 1989, 7072 of 1989 and 7073 of 1989 be also extended to the petitioner on the same terms and conditions. The order dated 12.04.2016 reads as under :- "Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned standing counsel for the State and Mr. Anurag Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 and 3. These are three writ petitions arising out of the similar orders whereby services of petitioners were terminated from the post of Seenchpal, as such, all these writ petitions have been connected and they are being heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. At the very outset, it is to be mentioned that in all these writ petitions interim orders have been granted in the year 1989 and on the strength of the interim orders, petitioners have been allowed to work and paid salary regularly. They have been working with the opposite parties for more than 27 years and now reaching the age of superannuation. At this stage, in case any adverse orders are passed, it would very harsh on the petitioners as they would not be able to have any employment at this age. Moreover, the petitioners during course of the employment were sent for training and after successfully completing the training, they have been allowed to work on the post of Seenchpal. Their work and conduct has always been satisfactory. Considering the equity, this Court under the similar facts and circumstances in Writ Petition No. 7887 (SS) of 1989 vide order dated 18.9.2013 had disposed of the writ petition in terms of the interim order. The order dated 18.9.2013 which has been placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been disputed by the other side. The said order on reproduction read as under: "Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the temporary post of Seenchpal (Patrol), Osarbandi posted at Sharda Sahayak Unit-I, Raebareli. But by the impugned order dated 05.08.1989 (Annexure-1), the services of the petitioner were terminated. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, where on 18.09.1989, this Hon'ble Court has passed an interim relief to the petitioner by observing that "... the petitioner shall also be continued in service so along as persons juniors to him are retained in service and petitioner's work and conduct remains satisfactory". Learned counsel further submits that by virtue of the interim order, the petitioner is continuing in service. He was also sent for the training and his work is satisfactory. He also submits that the impugned order is against the law as the petitioner was duly selected as per the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 11.07.1985. So, he made a request that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. On the other hand, learned standing counsel has justified the impugned order. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner is working on the post in question since 1989, by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court. On the basis of the equity, good conscious and justice, and also on the material available in the petition, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order dated 18.09.1989." It is informed that the review petition preferred against the above order was rejected and the defective special appeal has not yet been admitted. In view of above, all the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the interim orders passed in the respective writ petitions." The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner will be entitled to continue his services with all consequential benefits. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled for the salary for the period he did not work. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Pks Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench