HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 425 of 2005 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. (C.M. Application No.23211 of 2005-Condonation of delay) 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Heard. 3. We have gone through the affidavit in support of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Cause shown is sufficient which is on account of procedural ground. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Delay is condoned. (C.M. Application No.8 of 2024-Impleadment/Intervention Application) (Order on memo of appeal) 4. Heard Sri Nishant Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants-State, Sri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anubhav Awasthi, learned counsel for the concerned private respondents, Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.1, Sri Om Prakash Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the intervenor. 5. This appeal was filed belatedly on 16.07.2005 challenging judgment Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C Counsel for Respondent(s) : Samir Kalia, Anand Mani Tripathi, Ashish Kumar Pandey, Ashish Verma, Manoj Kumar Misra, Om Prakash Mani Tripathi, Ramesh Pandey, Y K Misra The State Of U.P Through Secy Edu.In Re W.P 4090 S/S 1997 .....Appellant(s) Sri Anil Kuarm Upadhyaya .....Respondent(s) and order dated 28.09.2004 passed by the writ court. 6. After hearing the parties, ultimately what comes out and as stated by Sri Nishant Shukla, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State that during pendency of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal as the appeal was delayed by over an year, the judgment impugned has been complied and the services of respondents-petitioners has been regularized in the year 2022 with effect from a date in the year 2016 and one of them namely, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh has even retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2022. It is informed by learned counsel for other respondent-petitioners that arrears of salary from the date of initial appointment has also been paid. As regards the client of Sri O.P.M. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate, he has not challenged the judgment impugned by the State but has sought to intervene herein only on the ground that the dispute herein is affecting the seniority of his client vis-a-vis the private respondents-petitioners. 7. Looking into the entire scenario before us, we are of the opinion that it is too late in the day to interfere with the judgment of the writ court on merits. We, however, make it clear that the said judgment or any consequential action taken by the appellants herein with regard to private respondents-petitioners shall not be determinative and by itself will not have a bearing on any seniority dispute between the respondents- petitioners and other teachers etc which can be decided independently wherein all relevant pleas can be raised and considered by the court or authorities as the case may be. 8. Accordingly, the special appeal is disposed of. The application for intervention is also disposed of in the aforesaid terms. November 24, 2025 Shanu/- SPLA No. 425 of 2005 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench