HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15372 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Sayed Wajid Ali, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Sri Vishal Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit and the petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the petition be decided at the fresh stage. 3. The case of the writ petitioner no. 1 is that he was engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin on 11.03.1987 and thereafter, his services stood regularized on 21.08.2012 and he was confirmed on 20.08.2014 and superannuated on 31.08.2023. So far as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, he was appointed as Collection Peon on 02.05.1986, his services was regularized as Collection Peon on 12.05.2008 and he was promoted as Collection Peon on 06.05.2016 and he superannuated on 30.09.2024 followed by petitioner no. 3 who was appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin on 28.08.1989, his services stood regularized on 25.10.2016 and he superannuated on 28.02.2025. 4. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the entire services undergone prior to the regularization is to be counted for the purposes of payment of pensionary benefits. 5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought reliance upon a decision in Special Appeal No. 152 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Bhanu Pratap) decided on 14.07.2021 wherein the incumbent who had preferred Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Syed Wajid Ali Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Rajendra Maurya And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) the writ petition in whose favour the writ petition stood allowed was also engaged as a work charge employee, however, he was regularized post enforcement of the new pension scheme and while interpreting the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Ordinance, 2020 benefits were accorded to them. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that even otherwise there happens to be series of judgments which are in favour fo the writ petitioners being Writ-A No. 95522 of 2024 decided on 21.10.2024, Special Appeal (D) No. 139 of 2025 dismissed on 02.07.2025 and of course a recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uday Pratap Thakur and others Vs. State of Bihar : (2023) 0 Supreme (SC) 429 reiterating the law laid down in Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P. : AIR 2019 SC 4390. 6. Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the respondents to take a decision upon the claim of the writ petitioner. 7. Sri Vishal Singh, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that whatever might be the grievance of the writ petitioner needs to be adjudicated and addressed by the second respondent, District Magistrate, District Maharajganj at the first instance. He submits that the applicability of the judgments is to be seen in the facts of the case in that regard. 8. Bearing in mind the fact that there are no orders passed either in black and white regarding consideration of the claim of the writ petitioner, thus, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the writ petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation along with self attested copy of the writ petition, certified copy of the order by 29.10.2025 before the second respondent, District Magistrate, District Maharajganj who shall thereupon proceed to examine the said issue and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three month therefrom. October 15, 2025 Rajesh WRIA No. 15372 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad