Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144624 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2373 of 2015 Petitioner :- Yogendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Radha Kant Ojha,Satyendra Chandra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J.P. Tripathi,M.A. Mishra,Shilpa Ahuja Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Satyendra Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.M.Shukla, learned Standing Counsel. 2. This Court has passed following order on 21.1.2015: “Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri S.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 9.7.2014 passed by the respondent No. 3 and further prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in peaceful functioning of the petitioner as daily wages clerk on the basis of changed scenario and also direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in view of Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Daily Wages Appointment on Group C posts (outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules 1998. It appears from the record that the petitioner was initially engaged as daily wages employee in Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad w.e.f 16.7.1991 and continued up to 23.7.1992. Meanwhile, on the basis of U.P. (Regulations of Buildings Operation) Act 1958, the State Government had declared certain areas as regulated areas, Dhampur for the purposes of development of city according to the plan so framed by the Authority and in a resolution dated 21.7.1992 the Committee passed resolution No. 4 for appointment of a Clerk and Class IV employee in the Regulated Area. In pursuance to the said request, the petitioner has been permitted to work as Class III employee in Dhampur Regulated Area on 24.07.1992. The details averred in the writ petition that time to time resolution had been passed for regularization of the petitioner but eventually it appears from the record that an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner on 20.05.2014 which was registered as Case Crime No. 254 of 2014 under Section 409 IPC at Police Station Dhampur, District Bijnor regarding missing of some important file. Sri R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate submits that in the said criminal case, final report had been submitted in the matter on 1.09.2014, meanwhile, the respondent No. 3 had passed the impugned order by which the petitioner' service on the daily wages had been restrained. He further submits that subsequently, the respondent No. 3 vide his recommendation dated 26.7.2014 (annexure No. 18 to the writ petition) had recommended in favour of the petitioner so that the services of the petitioner may be taken by the regulated area i.e. Dhampur on the basis of his experience. He further submits that once the final report had been submitted and the petitioner had not been involved in any manner regarding missing of the said file which was eventually traced out. Therefore, the petitioner's service of more than 22 years cannot be dispensed with on the said incidence. In view of above, the matter requires consideration. The matter requires consideration. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter. List thereafter. Till the next date of listing, impugned order dated 9.7.2014 passed by the respondent No. 3 shall be kept in abeyance.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner on basis of instructions submits that petitioner has enjoyed the fruits of interim order and he is still in service. He further submits that impugned order being passed in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, it may be set-aside and claim of the petitioner for regularization be considered in terms of notification dated 12.9.2016. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that there are legal impediments in considering the claim of petitioner so far as regularization is concerned. He has not able to dispute that petitioner has taken benefit of the interim order. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances considering that in pursuance of criminal investigation, final report was submitted which was accepted also, therefore, legal impediment to discontinue the petitioner from service has already been removed therefore, impugned order is set- aside and its legal consequence shall follow. 6. So far as claim of the petitioner in respect of regularization is concerned, petitioner is at liberty to approach concerned respondents and in case the petitioner falls within the ambit of notification dated 2.9.2016, respondents will consider his claim in accordance with law and in case there is any legal impediment, same shall be conveyed to the petitioner as soon as possible. 7. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad