HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 716 of 2026 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J. Re: C.M. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2026 1. Cause shown sufficient. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Application is allowed. Order on Appeal 3. Having heard Shri T.B. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State- appellant and Shri Sachin Dubey, learned counsel for the original petitioner/respondent and having perused the record, we find absolutely no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned single judge dated 19.05.2026 in Jabir Singh vs State of U.P. & Anr., 2026:AHC:116021. 4. The case has a checkered history. Earlier, the petitioner had claimed retrenchment which led to the institution of a industrial dispute, being Industrial Case No. 47 of 2006. Vide award of the Labour Court dated 23.12.2006, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with full back wages. Thus, continuity of petitioner's services with effect from October 1987 was ensured by the judicial officer. The award of the Labour Court was modified to a limited extent, vide order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition No. 22591 of 2008, whereby the only modification made was to provide for payment of 50% back wages instead of full back wages. That order of the writ Court has attained finality. 5. Though the order of the Labour Court to reinstate the petitioner in service attained finality, he was reinstated in service, with some delay, on 12.03.2014. Pursuant thereto, he joined with delay, on 15.03.2014. Working Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C., Tej Bhanu Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : State Of Up And Another .....Appellant(s) Jabir Ali .....Respondent(s) in that capacity, claim of regularization in service was declined to the petitioner, by means of order dated 20.03.2015. That order was made subject matter of challenge giving rise to the present proceedings. For ready reference, relief claimed in the writ petition reads as below: "a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.03.2015 passed by Respondent No. 2 (Annexure - 6) to the writ petition. b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to Regularize the petitioner on Class IV post from the date his juniors had been promoted with all consequential benefits." 6. There is no dispute to the fact that the persons junior to the petitioner had been regularized in terms of U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Post Rules, 2001. That fact was also recorded in the award of the Labour Court, referred to above. 7. In that circumstance, writ Court has rightly found petitioner fully entitled to regularization from the date his next junior was regularized. As to the payment of 50% back wages at the rate minimum of pay scale, the law is not in doubt in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337. 8. To the extent the right of the petitioner to be regularized in service is fully protected in terms of order of the Labour Court that had long attained finality and further in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Putti Lal (supra), consequential relief granted in terms of the law declared by the Putti Lal (supra) is wholly in accordance with law. The order of the learned single judge does not suffer from any infirmity. 9. Accordingly, the present intra-Court appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. October 1, 2026 Prakhar SPLAD No. 716 of 2026 2 (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad