HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 11495 of 2025 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Shri Pradeep Chandola, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The captioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia praying therein for the following reliefs:- "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by opposite party no. 2 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to order dated 19.10.2023 passed by opposite party no. 2 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. (iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to treat the services of the petitioner to be regularized under the provisions of U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group-C Post (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 as directed by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 10.07.2014 passed in Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004 and further grant him benefit of First and Second A.P.C. and others post retiral dues including the pension accordingly." 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was engaged as Instructor (Turner) in the capacity of daily wager on 21.06.1993 in Government Industrial Training Institute, Raebareli. The U.P. Rajkiya Audhyogik Prashikshan Sansthan Dainik Vetan Karmchari Sangh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Union'), of which petitioner was a member, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Dwivedi, Pradeep Chandola Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Bal Krishna .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Vocational Education And Skill Development Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 5683 (S/S) of 1995 which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 16.02.2004 whereby, direction was issued to the respondents to consider the cases for regularization of service of the members of the Union under the provisions of U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Post Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1979'). The State Government challenged the judgment and order dated 16.02.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 5683 (S/S) of 1995 by filing Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004 but during pendency of the said Special Appeal, the services of the members of the Union including petitioner were regularized vide order dated 29.08.2005 and consequential order was passed by the Director on 01.09.2005. 4. Later on, the Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004 had been partly allowed vide judgment and order dated 10.07.2014 where under, it had been provided that where the respondents have regularized services of the members of the Union under the Rules of 1979, their services shall be treated to have been regularized under the provisions of U.P. Regularization of Daily Wage Appointment on Group 'C' Post (Outside the Purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1998'). The judgment and order dated 10.07.2014 passed in Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004 has not been challenged and had attained finality. 5. The case of the petitioner is that under the judgment and order dated 10.07.2014 passed in Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004, the issue in respect of the regularization of services of the petitioner stood finally settled and his services stood regularized w.e.f. 29.08.2005. However, on wrong premise that liberty has been granted under the judgment and order dated 10.07.2014 passed in Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004 for considering the cases for regularization afresh, the respondents proceeded to consider the cases of other employees and the petitioner and had passed an order on 19.10.2023 wherein, it has been held that since petitioner's initial appointment was made after the cut off dated of 29.06.1991 prescribed under the Rules of 1998, therefore, his services cannot be regularized under the said rules and accordingly, the date of regularization of petitioner's services shall be treated as 13.08.2015. 6. The petitioner, in the writ petition, has stated that he was not aware WRIA No. 11495 of 2025 2 about the order dated 19.10.2023 whereby, the date of regularization of his services has been changed from 29.08.2005 to 13.08.2015, and in the meantime, he after attaining the age of superannuation had retired from service on 31.05.2025. It has been stated in the writ petition that identically worded order passed on the same date i.e. on 19.10.2023 in respect of an employee, identically placed to the petitioner, was challenged before this Court by filing Writ A No. 1423 of 2024 and after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, by a detailed judgment and order dated 13.02.2025, the writ petition had been allowed. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed that his writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the judgment and order dated 13.02.2025 passed in Writ A No. 1423 of 2024. 7. Shri Pradeep Chandola, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that once the issue in respect of the date of regularization of petitioner's services stood settled vide judgment and order dated 10.07.2014 passed in Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004, there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to change the date of regularization of petitioner's services, as such, the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 on its face is unsustainable. 8. Shri Pradeep Chandola, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court another judgment and order dated 30.08.2024 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 80 of 2021 and submits that in the said judgment, this Court had categorically held that the issue in respect of the date of regularization of the services of the employees including petitioner stood finally settled by the judgment and order dated 10.07.2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004. 9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents though has opposed this writ petition but could not deny the fact that the issue in respect of the date of regularization of the services of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons had already been settled by the judgment and order dated 10.07.2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004 and judgment and order dated 30.08.2024 passed in Special Appeal No. 80 of 2021. 10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the petitioner herein was initially WRIA No. 11495 of 2025 3 engaged as a daily wager Instructor (Turner) in the Government Industrial Training Institute, Raebareli. Thereafter, the Union filed a Writ Petition No. 5683 (S/S) of 1995 which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 16.02.2004, whereby direction was issued to consider the cases for regularization of the services of the members of the Union including the petitioner under the Rules of 1979. The State Government challenged the judgment and order dated 16.02.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 5683 (S/S) of 1995 by filing Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004. During pendency of the Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004, the respondents proceeded to comply with the judgment and order dated 16.02.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 5683 (S/S) 1995 and thereby, passed an order on 29.08.2005 whereby, services of the members of the Union including the petitioner were regularized on Group C posts subject to final outcome of the Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004. 11. Later on, the Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004 had been partly allowed vide judgment and order dated 16.02.2004. The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 16.02.2004 is extracted as under:- "According to learned Standing Counsel, 36 Instructors working in ITI have already been regularized in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Regularizastion of Daily Wage Appointment on Group C Post (Outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 by means of order dated 21.09.2001 and as such, the members of the respondent association, who have been regularized, shall be treated to have been regularized under the aforesaid Rules, 1998 and not under the provisions of U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Post within the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979. We find force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel. Since, the members of the respondent association have been regularized in service much earlier, it is provided that their regularization shall be treated to have been made under the provisions of U.P. Regularization of Daily Wage Appointment on Group C Post (Outside the Purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 and not under the provisions of U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc appointments (on post within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979. The judgment and order dated 16.02.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge stands modified, in above terms. The special appeal is allowed partly." 12. This Court finds that the matter in respect of regularization of the petitioner's services w.e.f. 29.08.2005 stood finally settled in terms of the judgment and order dated 10.07.2014 passed in Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004, as in the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court had WRIA No. 11495 of 2025 4 categorically provided that the services of the members of the Union which have already been regularized shall be treated to have been regularized under the Rules of 1998, particularly keeping in view that that the judgment and order dated 10.07.2014 passed in Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004 has not been challenged by the State and it had attained finality. 13. It is note worthy that the State-respondents, under misconception that they have liberty to consider the cases for regularization afresh under the judgment and order dated 10.07.2014 passed in Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004, proceeded to consider the cases afresh and thereby, passed the order by changing the date of regularization of services of the members of the Union, and ultimately, matter again reached before the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 80 of 2021 which had been decided vide judgment and order dated 30.08.2024 wherein, it had been categorically held that the date of regularization of services of the members of the Union including petitioner herein stood settled under the judgment and order dated 10.07.2014 passed in Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004, therefore, it is not open for the State-respondents to change the date of regularization again. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment and order dated 30.08.2024 passed in Special Appeal No. 80 of 2021 are extracted as under:- "Heard Shri G.C. Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in writ petition bearing number 171 (S/S) of 2017, as also, the order dated 28.11.2016 passed by Director, Training & Employment, Lucknow. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant was engaged on daily wages as Instructor in the Directorate of U.P. Training and Employment on 07.01.1991. A writ petition was filed by Association of such Instructors bearing Writ Petition No. 5683 (S/S) of 1995 (Karamchari Kalyan Samiti, Lucknow & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). The said writ petition was decided on 16.02.2004. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:- "A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the opposite parties commanding them to consider regularization of those members of the petitioner-association who were working on the post of Instructor on daily wage basis prior to 30.6.1998 against the existing vacancies which have come outside the purview of Public Service Commission, before making any regular appointment in accordance with relevant rules, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of production of a copy of this order and till they are WRIA No. 11495 of 2025 5 considered for regularization, they shall be allowed to continue as such." Being aggrieved, the State of U.P. challenged the said judgment by means of Special Appeal no. 339 of 2004. The appeal of the State was allowed in part and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.02.2004 was modified. In the interregnum, i.e. before the passing of the said judgment in appeal and after passing of the judgment by the Single Judge on 16.02.2004, the judgment of the Single Judge was complied and services of the members of the said Association i.e. a total of 8 persons including the appellant herein were regularized by means of order dated 19.09.2005. The said regularization was subject to the result of the appeal referred herein above. Ultimately, when the appeal came up for hearing, the Division Bench hearing the appeal found that services of concerned persons which included the appellant had already been regularized. However, it found that the learned Single Judge while issuing the direction for regularization had referred to the Rules known as U.P. Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments (on post within the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 {hereinafter referred as Rules, 1979}, as amended from time to time, whereas the said rule did not apply to daily wage employee. For the daily wage employees, another set of Rules known as the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wage Appointment on Group 'C' Post (Outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 {hereinafter referred as Rules, 1998}, were applicable. Accordingly, noticing the fact that 36 Instructors working in I.T.I. had already been regularized in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, 1998 by means of earlier order dated 21.09.2001, as such it directed the members of the respondent-Association before it who had been regularized (i.e. which included the appellant herein along with 7 other persons) shall be treated to have been regularized under the aforesaid Rules, 1998 and not under the Rules, 1979. It accordingly found force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel only to this extent otherwise it observed that since the members of the respondent-Association have been regularized in service much earlier, which according to the appellant herein included persons junior to him whose names figure at Serial No. 24 & 26 in the order dated 21.09.2001 (by which their services were regularized), therefore, the Co-ordinate Bench provided that regularization of the said persons (i.e. the 8 persons including the appellant) shall be treated to have been made under the provisions of Rules, 1998 and not under the Rules, 1979. Thus, the regularization of the appellant and 7 other persons made vide order dated 19.09.2005 was approved and affirmed subject to the aforesaid modification that the said regularization shall not be treated as one under the Rules, 1979 but under the Rules, 1998. In doing so, the Court also took into consideration the earlier regularization of other members which according to the appellant herein, some of whom were junior to him, as mentioned herein above and a fact which was specifically asserted before the learned Single Judge Bench in Paragraph 8 of the writ petition. The said specific averment in Paragraph 8 of the petition has not been replied specifically by the State. The appellant has already retired from service on 31.07.2022. Be that as it may, the said judgment dated 10.07.2014 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the appeal referred above has attained finality between the parties, therefore, any action contrary to the said judgment is unacceptable. The law is trite that even an erroneous judgment is binding between the parties or at least its operative portion is binding upon them, this is so even where the law undergoes a change subsequently. Learned Counsel for the State could not deny the fact that this judgment dated 10.07.2014 passed in Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004 has attained finality. He however contended that the operative portion of the said judgment gave liberty to the State Government to consider the case of the members of the Association for regularization under the Rules, 1998. With WRIA No. 11495 of 2025 6 respect, we disagree with the contention, as, it is apparently contrary to what has been stated by the Division Bench. To satisfy the learned Standing Counsel who has argued the matter, we quote the operative portion of the aforesaid judgment:--- "Since the members of the respondent association have been regularized in service much earlier, it is provided that their regularization shall be treated to have been made under the provisions of U.P. Regularization of Daily Wage Appointment on Group 'C' post (Outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 and not under the provisions of U.P. Regularization of Ad hoc appointments (on post within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rule, 1979. The judgment and order dated 16.02.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge stands modified, in above terms. The special appeal is allowed partly." Nowhere, does it give liberty to the State to reconsider the matter or consider the regularization again. What it says is that the regularization is already done, as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, that shall be treated as having being made under the Rules, 1998 and not under the Rules, 1979. For some inexplicable reason, the State authorities revisited the matter in spite of the fact that the matter stood already closed by the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and passed another order on 28.11.2016 wherein after quoting the relevant extract of the said judgment dated 10.07.2014, it has been mentioned that the appellant herein did not fulfill the conditions of regularization as per the Rules, 1998, without elaborating as to which condition he did not fulfill. In any case, whatever it may be, once the matter stands closed by a judgment of this Court rendered by a Division Bench, the order dated 28.11.2016 cannot be sustained and in fact is in the teeth of the said judgment and in contempt of it. It appears that the State authority which passed the order, misinterpreted the judgment of the Division Bench and passed such an order more than two and a half years after the judgment by the Division Bench on 10.07.2014. It is this order which was challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge Bench by means of Writ Petition No. 171 (S/S) of 2017 which has been dismissed. We have perused the said judgment. Learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that there was a Division Bench judgment dated 10.07.2014 which approved the regularization of the appellant along with other members of the Association which was the petitioner therein as done in 2005 and the same was to be treated to be regularization as one under the Rules, 1998 and not the Rules, 1979. If there was any flaw, then the State could have sought a review of the said judgment of the Division Bench but no such thing was done. Learned Single Judge however proceeded to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petitioner did not have the requisite experience of three years in the year 1991. What the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate was that in the interregnum, the appellant had been working for almost 14 years on the date of regularization and as on dismissal of the writ petition for almost 30 years. Therefore, this could hardly be a ground to sustain the impugned order dated 28.11.2016, certainly, not in the teeth of the Division Bench judgment dated 10.07.2014. As already stated, after rendering of the judgment dated 10.07.2014, it was not open for the State authorities to revisit the matter. The other qualifications, the appellant fulfills, as there is no dispute over it. WRIA No. 11495 of 2025 7 He is a I.T.I. certificate holder which is the qualification prescribed for the post in question, although the same has been prescribed subsequent to to his engagement on daily wages. As regards, the contention of Shri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel relying upon the averments made in Paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit filed in August, 2024 to the effect that the services of the appellant had been interrupted and he was not in service from 16.04.1991 to 25.10.1991 and 10.12.1991 to 14.03.1996. This is absolutely inconsequential, as on the date of the promulgation of the Rules, 1998, he was very much in service and in any case, all these pleas should have been taken in the earlier round of litigation. There is no question of reopening the matter, as already stated. Learned Single Judge has clearly erred in dismissing the writ petition. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 08.01.2021 is quashed. The order impugned before it dated 28.11.2016 is also quashed. The appellant shall be treated as regularized in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 10.07.2014 from the date of his regularization, albeit, under the Rules, 1998. The writ petition is allowed, so is the appeal. Consequences shall follow accordingly as per law." 14. This Court also finds that identically worded order passed on the same date i.e. on 19.10.2023 (as is the case of the petitioner herein) was challenged before this Court in Writ-A No. 1423 of 2024 and this Court, after considering the judgment and order dated 10.07.2014 passed in Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004 and the judgment and order dated 30.08.2024 passed in Special Appeal No. 80 of 2021, had allowed the writ petition and had quashed the order dated 19.10.2023 with a direction for payment of consequential benefits to the petitioners therein. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment and order dated 13.02.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 1423 of 2024, are extracted as under:- " 12. From the perusal of aforesaid judgment and order, it is clear that the Division Bench has taken into account the fact that the controversy in the present case should have concluded when the judgment dated 10.07.2014 was passed in Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004 where the judgment of learned Single Judge was modified and regularization of petitioners was held to be made in consideration of U.P. Regularization of Daily Wage Appointment on Group 'C' Post (Outside the Purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998, and no direction was given to the respondents to re-consider and pass fresh orders. 13. Accordingly, all the orders passed after the judgment and order dated 10.07.2014 are illegal and arbitrary and were rightly quashed by the Division Bench. There is no reason for us to take different view of the matter, once entire controversy has been settled by the Division Bench in the case of Jagdish Prasad Verma in Special Appeal No. 80 of 2021. WRIA No. 11495 of 2025 8 14. In the light of above and considering the facts that all the other orders have already been quashed and set aside by the judgment dated 30.08.2024, present writ petitions are also liable to be allowed quashing the order dated 19.10.2023. 15. Accordingly, order dated 19.10.2023 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed with all consequential benefits in favour of the petitioners." 15. From the aforesaid judgment and order dated 10.07.2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004, judgment and order dated 30.08.2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 80 of 2021 and the judgment and order dated 13.02.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 1423 of 2024, it is patently manifest that the issue, subject matter of this writ petition in respect of change of date of regularization of petitioner's services, had already been settled and identically worded order passed on the same date i.e. order dated 19.10.2023 had been quashed by this Court with all consequential benefits. 16. In view of the aforesaid reasons that the issue, subject matter of this writ petition, had already been settled, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 2, contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, is quashed with a direction that the respondents shall treat the date of regularization of the petitioner's services as 29.08.2005 and accordingly shall pay all consequential benefits. September 25, 2025 Lokesh Kumar WRIA No. 11495 of 2025 9 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench