HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 6 of 2021 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. Order on Delay Condonation Application 1. Heard. 2. This is a belated appeal filed during the Covid-19 pandemic. The benefit of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 and other orders passed by the Division Benches of this Court is available to the State in this case. 3. Accordingly, in view of the explanation offered, the delay is condoned. Order on Appeal 4. This appeal was filed way back in 2021. No stay was granted. The judgement impugned is dated 10.1.2020 having been passed in Writ Petition No. 3905 (S/S) of 1996. The writ petition in fact was filed in 1996. 5. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent. 6. Contention of the appellants' counsel is that the learned Single Judge has erred in granting parity to the respondent-petitioner with the Research Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ganga Singh State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Education Deptt. Lko And Anr. .....Appellant(s) Sayed Hasan Intiaz Rizvi .....Respondent(s) Assistants working in the office of the Legal Remembrancer on a misconception as if the qualifications are same which they are not. For a Research Assistant in the office of Secretary, Law, the qualification is of LL.B. which at that time was acquired after completion of graduation and there was no provision for intermediate students straightaway taking admission in LL.B. 3 years course, therefore, such Research Assistant in the said office of Principal Secretary, Law was not only a graduate, but also had a qualification of LL.B. and 4 years experience, whereas the Research Assistant in the office of Secretariat of the Government required to possess the qualification of only Graduation (not necessarily LL.B.) with 3 years experience, but this aspect has been lost sight of and the writ petition was allowed on the misreading of the records. 7. It is also stated that the learned Single Judge proceeded on a presumption that the work of Research Assistants in the Secretariat of the Government of U.P. and the one working in the office of Legal Remembrancer was the same without discussing any such similarity. 8. On being asked, he informed that the respondent retired in 2015 itself after filing the writ petition in 1996. He was not in a position to inform us as to whether the judgement dated 10.1.2020 had been complied or not. No doubt, there was no stay. 9. We find merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, however, we cannot lose sight of the fact that if the judgement has already been complied and the respondent retired way back in 2015, then it would not be reasonable to deny him the benefits under the impugned judgement at this stage, if already availed. 10. We, therefore, dispose of this appeal with the observations/directions SPLAD No. 6 of 2021 2 that if the impugned judgement has already been complied, then nothing shall be recovered from the respondent-petitioner, which may have been given as consequential benefits. However, if the same has not been complied as yet, then the judgement shall be understood as being ineffective in view of the submissions noticed herein-above and our observations made herein-above. November 3, 2025 Shravan SPLAD No. 6 of 2021 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench