HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10719 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Short counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not intend to file any reply thereto. 3. As such court proceeds to hear and decide the case. 4. Under challenge is the order dated 14.05.2025, a copy of which is Annxure-1 to the petition, so far as it pertains to the petitioner whereby the date of regularization of the petitioner has been changed from 22.09.1987 to 09.02.2023. 5. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed on 15.09.1987 on the post of Technical Assistant Food Preservation. Thereafter, a regularization order dated 09.02.2023, a copy of which is annexure-9 to the petition, was issued whereby the petitioner was regularized with effect from the date he joined duties which has been indicated as 22.09.1987. Subsequent thereto, by means of the order impugned date of regularization of the petitioner has been changed to that of issuance of the regularization order i.e. 09.02.2023. 6. Shri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 on the basis of averments contained in the short counter affidavit filed today states that there was a justification per which the date of regularization of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Kumar Pushpakar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Patel Virendra Prasad Dhar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. To Govt., Deptt. Of Khadi And Village Industry Lko And Another .....Respondent(s) the petitioner has been changed from the date of his initial joining on ad hoc basis to the date when the regularization order was passed i.e. in the year 2023. However, he fairly states that prior to passing of the order impugned, no opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioner. 7. Considering that it is the date of regularization of the petitioner which has been changed from the year 1987 to 2023 and the petitioner had acquired a vested right in terms of his regularization order being made effective from the year 1987 which entails payment of retiral dues on account of length of service rendered by the petitioner as such prior opportunity of hearing should have been accorded to the petitioner before passing of the order impugned which admittedly has not been accorded to the petitioner. 8. Keeping in view the the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 14.05.2025, a copy of which is Annxure- 1 to the petition, so far as it pertains to the petitioner is set aside. Consequences to follow. 9. It would be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law . September 24, 2025 prateek WRIA No. 10719 of 2025 2 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench