Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83496 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 55820 of 2013 Petitioner :- Dinesh Chandra Pathak Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Mishra,D.K.Singh,Dilip Kumar,Dilip Kumar Singh,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Prabhakar Awasthi,Raghwendra Prasad Mishra,Sankalp Narain Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Kumar Sharma,Akhilesh Sharma,Ashish Kumar Mishra,Avinash Kumar Sharma,Satyendra Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 7.8.2013 passed by Regional Level Committee headed by Joint Director of Education, Vindhyanchal Region, Mirzarpur, rejecting the services of the petitioner as L.T. Grade teacher. 3. Though facts are not in dispute that initially after appointment when the respondents have not released salaries to the petitioner, he approached this Court by filing writ petition being C.M.W.P. No. 34029 of 1991 and in the said writ petition, interim directions were issued directing the respondents to pay salaries to the petitioner w.e.f. 3.6.1991. The said writ petition was subsequently rejected. Against the same, Special Appeal No. 989 of 2012 was filed, which was allowed directing the respondents to re-consider representation of the appellant therein and till passing of final orders, status quo with regard to continuity of the services of the petitioner shall be maintained. 4. Consequent on the said disposal of the special appeal, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly submitted that identical issues were dealt with by this Court in bunch of writ petitions being Writ A No. 21492 of 2023 (Vinod Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others), wherein this Court has observed as below: "146. I am of the view that after lapse of such a long period, denial by the State Government in regularizing the services of the petitioners would not be in the interest of justice and a sympathetic view should be taken by the State while considering such regularization under the provisions of Section 33-B, 33-C, 33-F, and 33-G of the Act of 1982. 147. The Apex Court had found in Sanjay Singh (supra) that adhochism should end in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Once the State has proceeded to deal with the matters post 2000 on a different pedestal complying the order in case of Sanjay Singh (supra), it should take a sympathetic view and consider the matter regarding regularization in terms of Section 33-B, 33-C, 33-F, and 33-G of the Act of 1982 for those short term vacancy and adhoc appointment which were made between 1985 to 2000. Rejecting regularization only on technical issues is leading to litigation which does not serve the purpose. 149. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the matters which have been remitted back to the Regularization Committee shall be considered in the light of the following directions: (i) The Regional Regularization Committee shall accord fresh consideration in all remitted matters within a period of six weeks from the date of remand. (iv) The Regularization Committee shall further accord due consideration to provision of Act of 1982 while considering the claim for regularization especially for all those candidates whose case fall under Sections 33-B, 33-C, 33-F, and 33-G. (v) It is further provided that in view of clarification of Government Order dated 26.09.2024, all the candidates whose matters are under consideration before the Regional Regularization Committee, shall be paid their salary which has been stopped pursuant to the order dated 09.11.2023 within a period as prescribed in the clarification order dated 26.09.2024, till their claims are finally decided." 6. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of Court that consequent to the disposal of the bunch of writ petitions, the State has considered and passed an order on 4th August, 2024. In view of the said Government Order dated 4th August, 2024, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to set aside the order and remand the matter for reconsideration of petitioner's case as per the said Government Order. 7. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 2.8.2013 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the authorities once again to reconsider the case of the petitioner as observed by this Court in Writ A No. 21492 of 2023 and also consequential directions issued by the State vide Government Order dated 4th August, 2024. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad