HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10396 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- "1) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure No. 14) passed by respondent no. 2, whereby the regularisation order dated 19.10.2007 has been amended, insofar as it relates to the petitioners. ii) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to forthwith sanction and release the pension of the petitioners under the Old Pension Scheme along with all consequential retiral dues, including gratuity, commutation of pension, General Provident Fund (GPF), Group Insurance Scheme (GIS), and any other admissible benefits, within a time bound period to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. iii) Issue a writ, order, or direction commanding the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on all the delayed retiral dues and pension, w.e.f. the respective dates ()of retirement of the petitioners till the date of actual payment." Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was regularized in the year 2007. He submitted that one of the employees of the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Shukla, Amit Kumar Verma, Rakesh Bajpai Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Patel Triloki Nath Mishra And 5 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru.Addl.Chief Secy./Prin.Secy. Dept. Khadi And Village Industries Lko And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) department, namely, Hanoman Prasad instituted Writ-A No.4264 of 2024 wherein the order was passed on 29.5.2024 directing the respondent authority to consider ant decide the representation of the employee concerned and once the contempt was filed, being annoyed, the respondents have passed the order impugned while modifying the order of regularisation of the petitioner and the date of substantive appointment has been fixed from the date of passing of the order of regularization, which is impermissible under the law. Adding his arguments, he submitted that in fact, prior to passing the order impugned, no opportunity of hearing was accorded and the benefit, which has been given to the petitioner since the year 2007 has been withdrawn and, therefore, the great prejudice is caused to the petitioner. He also submitted that the order impugned goes against the first principle of law and, therefore, the same is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has failed to refute the contention of the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the order impugned in the writ petition which itself indicates that while passing the order impugned, the respondent no.2 has acted against the settled proposition of law. Consequently, the orders impugned dated 23.1.2025 and 29.8.2025 passed by the respondent nos. 2 are hereby quashed. However, liberty is given to the respondents to take fresh decision in accordance with law. November 26, 2025 Ram Murti WRIA No. 10396 of 2025 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench