Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23625 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3286 of 2022 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Govt. Up Civil Sectt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Singh,Bhupendra Veer Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1. Heard Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner was firstly engaged as Seasonal Collection Peon under the respondents between the years 2003 to 2004. Since his services were not being regularized, he was constrained to institute a writ petition before this Court. From the record, it further transpires that although the petitioner continued to work in the capacity of Seasonal Collection Peon notwithstanding the rejection of his request for regularization. 3. As this Court reads the order impugned, it is evident that it is based solely upon the contents of a Government Order of 29 August 2001 which purported to restrain the respondents from making any fresh appointments after 01 April 2001. Learned counsel however draws attention of the Court to the list of Seasonal Collection Peon drawn by the respondents themselves for the purposes of considering claims for regularization to establish that many appointments have been made on 01 April 2001 by the respondents themselves. 4. More fundamentally, the Court takes into consideration the facts noticed by a learned Judge in Sanjai Kumar Yadav And Another Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others [Writ-A No.14459 of 2018]. The learned Judge had noted the undisputed fact that the Government Order of 29 August 2001 had come to be superseded by the subsequent Government Order of 21 June 2002. Dealing with a similar claim for regularization having been refused by the respondents, the learned Judge observed thus:- "In the backdrop of undisputed facts, the services of the petitioners could not have been terminated for violation of Government Order dated 29 August 2001, admittedly, the said Government order was superseded and non existent on the date on which the petitioners were appointed Seasonal Collection Amin. In other words, the Government order cannot became the basis for termination under which petitioners were not appointed. The Government order dated 21 August 2001, has no reference to the petitioners directly or indirectly." 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the Court finds itself unable to uphold the view as expressed in the order impugned. 6. Against the aforesaid order passed by learned Single Judge, the State has preferred an special appeal numbered as Special Appeal Defective No.1067 of 2020 (State of U.P. through Secretary, Department of Revenue and 4 others vs. Sanjai Kumar Yadav and another) which has also been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.02.2019 and 18.04.2022 is quashed. The matter shall stand remanded to the second respondent for deciding the claim of the petitioner for regularization afresh and in light of the observations made hereinabove. The exercise of consideration shall be concluded with expedition and preferably within a period of three months from today. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench