HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 556 of 2010 with SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 552 of 2010 with SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 557 of 2010 with SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 560 of 2010 with SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 562 of 2010 with SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 563 of 2010 with SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 564 of 2010 with SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 565 of 2010 with SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 566 of 2010 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard. 2. After hearing Shri V.P. Nag, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State appellants as also Shri Yogesh Chandra Srivastava Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arvind Kumar Sinha, Yogesh Chandra Srivastava State Of U.P. Throu. Its Prin. Secy.Social .....Appellant(s) Yaar Mohammad .....Respondent(s) for contesting respondent in this appeal as also all other connected appeals, which are listed today, what comes out is that respondents herein were selected and appointed on different Class IV posts in pursuance to the same advertisement, which was issued on 02.12.1994. Infact a list of 365 selected persons was prepared for appointment on 10.10.1995, out of which, 102 persons were given appointment on regular basis vide order dated 29.12.1995 and other 152 persons were given appointment on consolidated pay basis vide orders dated 19.12.1995 and 29.02.1996. The respondents herein belong to this latter category of appointees. 3. It is not in dispute that from time to time regular pay scale was granted to several similarly situated persons without adhering to seniority, a fact which has come in the impugned judgment and has neither been satisfactorily explained nor denied by the appellants' counsel herein. It is also not in dispute that from time to time services of similarly situated persons have been regularized. Taking into consideration all these facts, especially the fact that respondents herein have continued in service on Class IV post since 1995 against sanctioned post, many of them have been given regular pay scale and services of several similarly situated persons have been regularized ignoring the seniority position, the writ court has allowed the writ petition in the following terms :- "In the facts and circumstances brought on the record, the Court must presume that since 1996 there must have been sanction of posts and several posts may have been fallen vacant in the department and thus all the writ petitions are allowed with directions that the petitioners, who are appointed on consolidated pay on the posts sanctioned by the State Government by orders dated 19.12.1995 and 29.2.1996 shall be allowed to continue in service. They shall be placed in the regular pay scale with effect from the date of their appointment on consolidated pay with all benefits of increments and allowances and shall be adjusted as and when the posts are sanctioned in the department. If the posts have not been sanctioned so far, the respondents are directed to sanction of posts and to adjust the petitioners on such posts as and when they are sanctioned. The SPLA No. 556 of 2010 2 services shall not be dispensed with except on the ground of misconduct. There shall be no orders as to costs." 4. Looking into the long services rendered by the respondents especially considering the fact that they were duly selected in a selection held in pursuance to an advertisement dated 02.12.1994 for appointment against sanctioned Class IV post in the pay scale of 750-940 and out of the total selected candidates, that is 365 candidates, 102/ 103 were given regular appointment, while 152 candidates were given appointment on consolidated pay, without the State having justified this discrimination before the writ court and, before us, we see absolutely no reason to interfere with the judgment of the writ court, especially as, a limited stay was granted to the respondents while entertaining the appeals only insofar as the writ court had directed sanction of posts and adjustment of the writ petitioners/ respondents against the said posts, especially as, we have been informed that the judgment of the writ court, except to the extent it had been stayed, has already been implemented, meaning thereby, the respondents have been placed in the regular pay scale of Class IV post right from the date of their initial appointment on consolidated pay with all benefits of increments and allowances, meaning thereby, arrears of salary from the date of their initial appointment has already been given to the respondents as informed by Shri V.P. Nag, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State appellants. In this regard, we also take into consideration the fact that the advertisement clearly mentioned that the same was being issued for selection against sanctioned posts but the posts were sanctioned only for a particular period and thereafter they were not extended but the persons so selected continued to serve and have been continuing to serve till date. 5. Looking into the facts, as noticed herein-above, we see no illegality in SPLA No. 556 of 2010 3 the order of the writ court. There is no reason for any interference in this intra court appeal. 6. At this stage we are informed that some of the respondents have attained the age of superannuation. We are of the opinion that the rights accrued to them under the judgment of the writ court cannot be denied on this count and therefore they will have to be considered for the benefits accordingly. 7. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. October 28, 2025 Arnima SPLA No. 556 of 2010 4 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench