Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129369 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 59310 of 2016 Petitioner :- Paramsukh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamta Prasad,Murali Manohar,Rakesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard Sri Anurag Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents. By means of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution , petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 11.11.2016 whereby petitioner's claim for regularization for the post of Compounder has come to be rejected. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner being Compounder claiming regularization for the post of Compunder and not for the post of pharmacist, which has been rejected only on the ground that the post of Nurse-cum- Compunder has become a dying cadre. It is contended that in the light of letter of Director, Social Welfare dated 1.11.2012 service of petitioner deserves to be regularized on the post of Compunder in accordance with the provisions contained under Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, as amended in the year 1988 and then in 2001 . It is argued that another Compounder Vipin Kumar Singh whose case is identical of that of petitioner approached this Court vide Writ A No. 29897 of 2018 (Vipin Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Others), which has come to be allowed vide order dated 08.01.2021and the Court held that petitioner would be entitled for regularization. It is submitted that vide judgment passed in the said writ petition of Vipin Kumar Singh, positive directions have been issued by all consequential benefits including pension etc. He has placed paragraphs 8 to 13 of the are that reproduced hereunder: "8. The Joint Director of Social Welfare communicated to all Regional Deputy Directors of Social Welfare, that by the Government Order dated 05.05.2009, 17 temporary posts created as untrained Nurse-cum- Compounder in the Social Welfare Department are now declared as dying cadre. On close scrutiny of the aforesaid Government Order, it is clear that after declaring dying cadre of 17 temporary posts, two separate new cadres were created; namely, "Nurse-cum-Compounder" and "Pharmacist" cadres. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as untrained Compounder and was having the requisite qualification at the time of his initial appointment and therefore, the petitioner can, at best, be merged under the new cadre of "Nurse-cum-Compounder" and he cannot be considered in the cadre of "Pharmacist" since he was not trained. 10. During the course of argument, learned Standing Counsel admits that no service Rules have been enacted for the Nurse-cum-Compounder cadre (untrained) and therefore, the requisite qualification and the educational qualification, which the petitioner had possessed at the time of his initial appointment, has not changed and the same will have no change even after the creation of new cadre of Nurse-cum-Compounder (untrained) and will equally be governed by the letter dated 25.03.1974 of the Director, Social Welfare. 11. The said fact is also clear from the letter of the Director, Social Welfare dated 28.01.2014 (Annexure No. 13), in which it has been clarified that against which posts, five ad hoc untrained posts of Nurse/Compounder will be regularized. The Director replied that these 5 ad hoc untrained posts are from the 17 temporary posts, which are declared dying cadre and these posts will be regularized against the same posts. It was further clarified the untrained Nurse/Compounder will not be merged in the proposed Pharmacist cadre as per the Government Order dated 05.05.2009. In other words, it is clearly provided that the petitioner will not be considered under Pharmacist Cadre; rather, he will be considered for regularization in the cadre of Nurse-cum-Compounder (untrained) as new separate cadre was created by the Government Order dated 05.05.2009. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the Director, Directorate of Social Welfare, U.P., Lucknow is hereby quashed. 13. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents concerned are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Compounder (untrained) in the Department of Social Welfare, U.P. and thereafter, pay all the consequential benefits, including pension, to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. " Learned Standing Counsel though sought to contest the order for the pleadings raised in the counter affidavit but could not dispute that claim set up by petitioner to be absolutely identical to one involved in the case of Vipin Kumar Singh. In the case of State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347, the Supreme Court has held that when the petitioner's case is in identical set of facts assailing identical relief and he has approached the Court within reasonable time then Court should not shirk away for granting identical relief for such petitioner. Vide paragraph 19, the Court has held thus: "22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently." In view of above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed in terms of order passed by this Court dated 08th January, 2021 in Writ A No. 29897 of 2018, Vipin Kumar Singh (supra) with all consequential benefits as directed in the said case. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 11.11.2016 passed by respondent no. 2, impugned in this petition is hereby quashed. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Sanjeev Digitally signed by :- SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad