HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 6674 of 2026 Court No. - 33 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Advocate holding brief of Ms. Alka Upadhyay, learned counsel for the UPSRTC and perused the record on board. 2. The petitioner has raised a grievance against the contesting respondents for not retaining his services on the post of a Conductor on a contractual basis. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being Writ A No. 5748 of 2017 (Vinod Kumar Srivastava and 13 Others vs. State of UP and 4 Others). The said writ petition was decided by order dated 07.02.2017 directing the authority concerned to decide the representation moved by the petitioner regarding his claim for continuation on the post of Conductor on a contractual basis. The competent authority, in pursuance of the order dated 07.02.2017, has rejected the claim of the present petitioner, namely, Narayan Das, vide order dated 31.03.2017, which became final inasmuch as the same has not been assailed by the present petitioner before any competent authority. A copy of the order dated 31.03.2017 has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents during the course of the argument, which is taken on record. A copy of the said order is served upon the learned counsel for the petitioner today in Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not aware about the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhaskar Bhadra, Rajveer Chaurasiya Counsel for Respondent(s) : Alka Upadhyay Narayan Das .....Petitioner(s) Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport Corporation And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) order dated 31.03.2017 passed by the competent authority against the petitioner. 5. Perusal of the order dated 31.03.2017 evinces that the grievance of the petitioner was already redressed by the competent authority and the said order was received by the employee (petitioner) on 24.04.2017. Since then, considerable time has elapsed; however, the petitioner has failed to challenge the order dated 31.03.2017, and the same has thus attained finality. 6. In view of the above, there is no force in the instant writ petition. As such, the same, being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed. May 5, 2026 vinay WRIA No. 6674 of 2026 2 (Dinesh Pathak,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad