HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12551 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Shurti Sahu, Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3 and the same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Shurti Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3. Petitioner was appointed as a daily wage employee on the post of Purchase Assistant by respondent no.4 on 27-09-1986. Subsequently he was called upon to appear for interview and since 1992 the petitioner was allowed salary in the regular scale of pay. Subsequent order dated 23.12.1992 is also on record as per which all other benefits admissible to a regular employee were granted to the petitioner. Petitioner continued to work in such capacity and ultimately attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2025. Grievance of the petitioner is that only because no formal order of regularisation was passed in his favour, he has been denied various benefits including provident fund, gratuity, etc. Learned counsel for the respondents respondents have neither disputed working of the petitioner, nor the fact that petitioner has been getting regular salary in the respective pay scale since 1992. In view of the materials placed on record it transpires that petitioner's Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sumeet Tahilramani, Shiv Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sandeep Sharma, Shruti Sahu Manoj Kumar Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Diary Development Deptt. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) working against a substantive post in regular pay scale since 1992 on wards is not disputed. If that be so, the authorities are required to pass specific order in respect of petitioner's regularization in accordance with law and to ensure that all terminal benefits which were due and payable to the petitioner are calculated and paid to him in accordance with law. Writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.3 to examine petitioner's claim in light of the observations made above. Needless to say that if the respondents reach to the conclusion that certain claims are liable to be paid to the petitioner, then the same shall be paid forthwith. October 17, 2025 AKS WRIA No. 12551 of 2025 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench