HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1012 of 2012 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. A. Order on Delay Condonation Application 1. Heard. 2. The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 47 days. 3. Cause shown for the delay is found to be sufficient. 4. Delay is condoned. 5. Accordingly, delay condonation application is allowed. 6. Office is directed to allot a regular number to the instant appeal. B. Order on Memo of Appeal 1. Heard Shri Ganga Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 and 3. 2. None is present on behalf of respondent no.2. 3. The appellant-petitioner has assailed the order dated 16.02.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.1546 of 1989 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay his entire salary alongwith arrears on Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava, Ganga Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Arvind Kumar Jain .....Appellant(s) The Dios And Others .....Respondent(s) the post of Assistant Teacher was dismissed. 4. The learned Single Judge has observed that the appointment of the appellant-petitioner on 17.11.1987 by Committee of Management on basis of approval obtained from DIOS on 13.11.1987 was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Clause 2 of First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and, consequently, no relief could be granted to him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submits that petitioner continued to work on basis of interim order and he retired in the year 2013 upon attaining the age of superannuation. On 17.01.2013, an order was passed by DIOS doubting the validity of the regularization order dated 02.11.1992. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-appellant filed Writ- A No.22080 of 2013 before this Court and the said writ petition has been allowed by a judgement dated 04.02.2025. The order of District Inspector of Schools dated 17.01.2013 has been quashed and the claim of the petitioner-appellant that his service was duly regularized has been upheld. He has also been held entitled to consequential benefits. The operative part of the order dated 04.02.2025 in the said writ petition is as follows: "11. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 17.1.2013, are set-aside and petitioners are considered to be regularized and therefore, entitled for consequential reliefs. 12. With the aforesaid observations/direction, both the writ petitions are disposed of." 6. It is urged that in such circumstances, the order impugned in the present appeal deserves to be quashed. 7. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is not in a position to dispute that this court in Writ-A No.22080 of 2013 filed by the petitioner- appellant has upheld the order of regularization of services of the petitioner-appellant and the writ petition has been allowed alongwith consequential reliefs. 8. Accordingly, the order of learned Single Judge dated 16.02.2012 SPLA No. 1012 of 2012 2 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. 9. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. October 14, 2025 Ankit. SPLA No. 1012 of 2012 3 (Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad