HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10920 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BL E ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Sri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3. 2. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally. 3. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Clerk/Typist on the basis of his 22 years of service with a further of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the minimum of the pay scale on the post of Clerk/Typist keeping in view the long years of service rendered by the petitioner. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the petitioner had been appointed on 30.05.2003 his services had been Rakesh Kumar Mishra State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Khadi Gramodyog U.P. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Alok Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Patel dispensed with vide order dated 12.07.2004. Upon a dispute being raised before the learned Labour Court, learned Labour Court vide award dated 14.05.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition, held the order dated 12.07.2004 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 15.07.2004 to be bad in the eyes of law and consequently directed for reinstatement of the petitioner along with 40% backwages. 5. The writ petition filed by the respondents bearing Writ-C No.33191 of 2018 in re: Chairman Khadi And Vill Industries Board and another vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court Lucknow and another, against the said award has also been dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the petition. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the petitioner having rendered almost 22 years of service and continuity of service being specifically provided by the award of learned Labour Court yet the respondents have neither considered the petitioner for regularization nor granted him the minimum of the pay scale. 7. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh vs. State of U.P. and others - 2015 INSC 998 to contend that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even contractual employees would be entitled for being considered for regularization. 8. Further placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others- (2019) 12 SCC 297 the contention is that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that till such time a person on temporary basis continues to work, he would be entitled for grant of the minimum pay scale. 9. The aforesaid proposition of law as enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dharam Singh (supra) and Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) is not disputed by the learned counsels for the respondents. 10. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.3 i.e. Chief Executive Officer to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra). 11. Further considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) the respondents are also directed to grant minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner of the said post, provided there is no legal impediment. 12. Let the order be complied within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. September 17, 2025 A. Katiyar A b d u M o n ,J .) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench