HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 300 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Dinesh Chandra Misra, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State. 2. Perused the impugned judgment dated 07.04.2025 passed in Writ-A No.1312 of 1998. 3. It appears that services of the appellant were terminated or he was disengaged orally sometime in 1997/1998. He preferred Writ-A No.1312 of 1998 seeking the following reliefs:- "a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorary thereby quashing or allowing the services of the humble petitioner by the opp. parties and to pay the salary of the past three months 1.e., with effect from June to August, 1997, b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamous commanding the opp.parties to stay the verbal termination of services as peon in class IV of the petitioner, c) any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem just and proper may also be pleased to pass in favour of the petitioner against the opp. parties." 4. During course of argument, prayer for regularization of his services was also made as have been noticed by learned Single Judge. It is not in dispute that appellant-petitioner has not been working since his disengagement in 1997/1998. There was no interim order in the writ Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Dinesh Chandra Misra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Aleem .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sharda Sahayak, Irrigation Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) petition out of which this appeal arises. No such provision was placed before this Court under which regularization of appellant/ petitioner could be considered in view of the facts noticed hereinabove. He has remained out of service since 1998. We are now in 2025. Learned Single Judge cannot be faulted for rejecting the claim regarding regularisation. However, we find that learned Single Judge did not consider the prayer of the appellant for being given salary of three months from June, 1997 to August, 1997. There is no consideration thereof. We, accordingly, dispose of the appeal with a direction to the concerned respondent to consider the prayer of the appellant-petitioner in this regard and take a decision after getting the facts verified as far as possible within a period of three months. Judgment of the writ court shall be treated as modified accordingly. September 10, 2025 Shanu/- SPLA No. 300 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench