Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7240-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1386 of 2025 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy.Deptt. Of Ayush Lko And Another Respondent :- Dhirendra Kumar Tewari And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Mishra Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri V.P. Nag, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the record. 2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-State of U.P. and Director Ayurvedic Services U.P. Lucknow, have challenged the validity of the judgment and order dated 21.10.2022 passed by State Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No.450 of 2018: Dhirendra Kumar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. 3. The aforesaid claim petition was filed by the opposite party no.1 seeking regularization of his services from the date of his initial appointment. The claimant had submitted that the services of other similarly situated employees had been regularized with effect from the date of their initial appointment, whereas the same benefit was denied to the claimant. The petitioner was initially appointed on 26.12.1994 and his services were regularised with effect from 09.08.2011. 4. The State opposed the claim petition stating that the other persons whose services had been regularized, were working as pharmacists whereas the claimant was working as a driver. 5. The Tribunal found that the petitioner's services had been regularized by means of an order dated 09.08.2011 along with five other persons, all of whom were working as drivers. The order states that the seniority of the employees will be fixed subsequently. Five of the six employees, including the petitioner, whose services had been regularized by means of order dated 09.08.2011 were made permanent by means of an order dated 28.12.2017. All the other four persons have been given regular appointments with effect from the date of their initial appointment and only the petitioner has been given appointment with effect from 09.08.2011 although he had initially been appointed with effect from 26.12.1994. The Tribunal found that the order giving regular appointment to the petitioner with effect from 09.08.2011, i.e. the date of regularization, whereas giving regular appointment in the other similarly situated persons with effect from the date of their initial appointment, was discriminatory and found the claimant entitled to regularization of services from the date of his initial appointment like four other persons named in the order dated 28.12.2017. The Tribunal directed the appellant to pass a reasoned and speaking order regarding regularization of service of the claimant from the date of his initial appointment within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 6. It appears that the opposite party no.1 filed Contempt Petition No.52 of 2023 before the State Public Services Tribunal due to non-compliance of the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by Tribunal. The State filed a compliance affidavit dated 04.10.2023 before the learned Tribunal annexing therewith a copy of an Office Memorandum dated 12.06.2023 issued in purported compliance of the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the compliance affidavit by means of an order dated 26.09.2024 and it is only thereafter that the State has filed the writ petition on 29.01.2025 challenging the judgment dated 21.10.2022 passed by the Tribunal. 7. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that by means of the judgment dated 21.10.2022, the learned Tribunal had directed the authorities to pass a reasoned and speaking order regarding regularization of opposite party no.1 which has been done through the Office Memorandum dated 12.06.2023 and the Tribunal has wrongly rejected the compliance affidavit. 8. The compliance affidavit was rejected by means of an order dated 26.09.2024, passed by the State Public Services Tribunal in Contempt Petition No.52 of 2023, which order is not under challenge in this writ petition. 9. As per the stand of the appellants themselves, the order dated 21.10.2022 passed in Claim Petition No.450 of 2018 already stands complied with. Therefore, the petitioners have no occasion to challenge the validity of the judgment and order dated 21.10.2022 after they claim to have complied with the same and that too, without reserving the right to challenge the order. 10. In these circumstances, we find no good ground to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [A.R. Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 31.1.2025 Shahnaz/Ram. Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench