Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42921 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6369 of 2025 Petitioner :- Prakash Narain Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Khadi And Village Industry Board Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mayankar Singh Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he does not intend to file a rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit as filed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents. The aforesaid statement is recorded and the Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter finally. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and Sri Mayankar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided. 4. The facts of the case have already been set forth in detailed by this Court vide order dated 04.06.2025 which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:- "1. Heard. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been appointed on compassionate ground initially on temporary/ adhoc basis vide order dated 17.09.1984, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition. 3. Subsequent thereto, vide order dated 14.09.2020, a copy of which is annexure 4 to the writ petition, the services of the petitioner have been regularized w.e.f the date of his appointment i.e 17.09.1984. 3. Thereafter, by means of the order impugned dated 14.05.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, the date of regularization of the petitioner has been changed along with several other employees but the said order has been passed in gross violation of the rules of the natural justice and without having afforded any opportunity of hearing to the parties which thus vitiates the order impugned. 4. Sri Mayankar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 & 2 prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instructions as to whether prior to passing the order impugned, any opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner. 5. List this case in the next week as fresh." 5. Today, Sri Mayanker Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 states on the basis of averment contained in the counter affidavit and also fairly states that prior to passing of the order impugned, no opportunity of hearing had been accorded to the petitioner. 6. Considering the aforesaid, it is apparent that the order impugned is patently violative of the rules of natural justice. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 14.05.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition is set aside so far as it relates to the petitioner. 8. Consequences to follow. 9. However, it would be open for the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Pachhere/- Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench