HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 5129 of 2005 Court No. - 25 HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. This petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following main prayers: "(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned termination orders dated 02.05.2005 collectively, with all consequential benefits. (ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioners to work on their posts and to consider them for regular appointment." It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were initially appointed on the post of Peon/Sahyogi in Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. on a daily-wage basis and their dates of appointment were 15.05.1999, 15.06.1999 and 10.08.1998 respectively. It has also been submitted that Writ Petition No. 4000 (SS) of 2004 was filed by the petitioners and other persons challenging the action of the respondents in issuing the advertisement dated 15.07.2004 for recruitment of 100 Peons in U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd., overlooking the petitioners, who were already working in the said Bank. The said writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 30.07.2004, by which a direction was given to the Selection Committee to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization before making any regular selection in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raghvendra Singh, Anurag Kumar Singh, Tanay Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent(s) : Balram Yadav, N.N. Jaiswal Hari Shanker Verma And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) U.P.Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd.Thru M.D.And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) accordance with the Regulations known as The Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Within the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board) Regulations, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations, 1985"). In furtherance of the direction issued in the judgment and order dated 30.07.2004 passed by this Court, the case of the petitioners was considered for regularization and it was found that since they were appointed after the cut-off date of 30.06.1998, they were not eligible for regularization under the Regulations, 1985. Accordingly, separate orders dated 02.05.2005 were passed for all three petitioners, rejecting their claim for regularization as well as terminating their services by invoking Regulations 8 of Regulations, 1985. This Court, while entertaining the present writ petition, passed an order dated 10.08.2005 staying the implementation of the termination orders dated 02.05.2005. As a consequence thereof, the petitioners were allowed to continue in service. Shri Balram Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that he has filed a counter affidavit, but the same is not on record. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioners have been continuing in service since their initial appointment on 15.05.1999, 15.06.1999 and 10.08.1998 and are still in service. In the meantime, the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Service of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract Basis on Posts Within the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Institutional Service Board in Co-operative Societies Regulations, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations, 2017") has come into force. Regulation 4(1) (a) of the Regulations, 2017 is reproduced hereinbelow: "was directly engaged or employed or deployed or working on daily wages or on work charge or on contract basis in a Co-operative Society under the purview of the Board, on or before December 31, 2001 and is still engaged or employed or deployed or working as such on the date of the commencement of these Regulations." Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that although the petitioners were not eligible earlier when their case for regularization was considered, WRIA No. 5129 of 2005 2 after the framing of Regulations, 2017, their case may now be considered for regularization in the light of the said Regulations. On the other hand, Shri Balram Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent- Bank submits that since the petitioners were working on the basis of an interim order, no right has accrued in their favour for consideration for regularization and the termination orders passed in 2005 are justified. This Court, after going through the record of the present writ petition, finds that the interim order dated 10.08.2005 was time-bound. It was extended from time to time, but was not extended after 13.03.2023 and petitioners are continuing in service even after 13.03.2023 till date. The Regulations 4(1)(b) of Regulations, 2017 provides for consideration of regularization of those who possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of their engagement or employment or deployment on daily wages or on contract basis. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank that petitioners did not possess the requisite qualifications when they were initially appointed/engaged in the year 1999. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioners deserves to be considered for regularization under Regulations, 2017. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.3, Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd., 10, Mall Avenue, Lucknow to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization under Regulations, 2017 within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. November 19, 2025 Mahesh WRIA No. 5129 of 2005 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench