2025:UHC:4713-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SPA/821/2017 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Mr. P. C. Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/appellant. 2. Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. As per the office report, there is delay of 146 days in filing the Special Appeal. 4. No objection on delay condonation application has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. For the reasons indicated in the affidavit filed along with the delay condonation application, the delay is condoned. 6. State has filed this intra court Appeal challenging the final order dated 19.04.2017, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 680 of 2017. The impugned order is extracted herein below for ready reference: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present lis is squarely covered by a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.12.2012 in Special Appeal No. 258 of 2012. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of judgment cited hereinabove alongwith order dated 16.06.2016, annexure No. 19, within a period of eight 2025:UHC:4713-DB weeks from today.” 7. Learned State counsel submits that the question involved in Special Appeal No. 258 of 2012 which was decided by Coordinate Bench, was entirely different, therefore, the writ petition could not have been decided in terms of judgment rendered in SPA No. 258 of 2012. Learned State counsel submits that the writ petitioner in the present case was regularised on the post of Instructor in Government ITI in the year 2013, while writ petitioners in Special Appeal No. 258 of 2012 were not regularised and they were working on contract therefore, the benefit which was given to the writ petitioners in Special Appeal No. 258 of 2012 cannot be given to writ petitioner. 8. We find substance in the said submission. The monetary benefits which contractual employees were claiming based on instructions issued by Central Government cannot be claimed by Respondent, who is getting regular salary, after being substantively appointed. 9. We therefore, modify the impugned judgement and direct the competent authority to take decision on the representation of the writ petitioner independently. However, the ratio of the judgment rendered in Special Appeal No. 258 of 2012 shall also be borne in mind while taking decision. (Subhash Upadhyay,J.)(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 09.06.2025 Kaushal/Anand 2025:UHC:4713-DB