HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10204 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. The petitioners, through this petition, has prayed for the following main reliefs:- "A. Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the opposite party No. 01 to consider and provide age relaxation in terms of rule 3 of UP public service (recruitment for age relaxation) rules 1992 for regularization of their services alike benefit provided in case of similarly situated collection peon working in the department. B. Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to consider the services of the petitioners for regularization from the date of their junior's regularization along with all consequential service benefits...." 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been appointed for the post of Seasonal Collection Peon on temporary basis from time to time, as stated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. The conduct of the petitioners are satisfactory, however, after for more than 20 years of service and in some cases more than about 30 years of services, the petitioners case have not been considered for regularization. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of the Court towards the seniority list and submitted that vide order dated 26.6.2023 services of the 13 Collection Peon have been regularized, thus, several juniors to the petitioners have been regularized and petitioner's case have not been considered on the ground that they have attained the age of 45 years and are not eligible for consideration for regularization. He submits that to relax the age and for considering their case for regularization, the petitioners have already been given representation to the opposite Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Birendra Kumar Yadav, Amit Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Adya Kumar Shukla And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Anubhag- 7, Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) party no.1. Learned Standing Counsel submits that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and appropriate direction may be issued to respondent no.1 to consider the grievance of the petitioners. 5. Perused the record so also the Rules i.e. U.P. Lok Seva (Bharti Ke Liye Aayu Seema Ka Shithilikaran) Niyamawali, 1992 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). It appears that government has the power to provide age relaxation to the petitioners while considering their case for regularization. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of without interfering with the order impugned with a liberty to each petitioner to file separate representation before the respondent no.1 along with certified copy of this order raising all their grievances within a period of three weeks' from today. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioners, the respondent no.1 shall consider and decide each representation in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months thereafter. While taking the decision the respondent no. 1 shall keep in mind the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Writ A No.54923 of 2017, Devki Nandan And 17 Others Vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others reported in 2018 (7) ADJ 334. September 4, 2025 Satish WRIA No. 10204 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench