Allahabad High Court

ANIL KUMAR SINGH AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. REVENUE GOVT. UP CIVIL SECTT. LKO. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 27 May 2026
Disposal: Allowed/Partly Allowed on merits/Granted
Bench: KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR

Holding

The 29 August 2001 Government Order was superseded and cannot be used as a basis to deny regularisation, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders.

Summary

The petitioners, employed as Seasonal Collection Peons by the Uttar Pradesh Department of Revenue from 2003-2004, sought regularisation of their services after their requests were repeatedly rejected. The respondents relied on a Government Order dated 29 August 2001, which purported to prohibit fresh appointments after 1 April 2001, to justify the denial. The Court observed that this order had been superseded by a later Government Order dated 21 June 2002, rendering the earlier order ineffective at the time of the petitioners' appointments. Citing the precedent of Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., the Court held that the superseded order could not form the basis for termination or refusal of regularisation. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 22 February 2019 and 18 April 2022 were quashed and the matter remanded to the second respondent to decide the regularisation claim afresh within three months. The writ petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the Government Order of 29 August 2001, which barred fresh appointments after 1 April 2001, can be used to deny regularisation of Seasonal Collection Peons appointed thereafter.
Whether the supersession of the 29 August 2001 order by the Government Order of 21 June 2002 nullifies its legal effect for service decisions.
Whether the respondents' refusal to regularise the petitioners' services violates service law and procedural fairness.

Subjects

regularisation
seasonal collection peon
government order supersession
service law
writ petition
Uttar Pradesh
employment

Judgment

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23625

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3286 of 2022

Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue
Govt. Up Civil Sectt. Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Singh,Bhupendra Veer
Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

1. Heard Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the
respondents.

2. The petitioner was firstly engaged as Seasonal Collection
Peon under the respondents between the years 2003 to 2004.
Since his services were not being regularized, he was
constrained to institute a writ petition before this Court. From
the record, it further transpires that although the petitioner
continued to work in the capacity of Seasonal Collection Peon
notwithstanding the rejection of his request for regularization.

3. As this Court reads the order impugned, it is evident that it is
based solely upon the contents of a Government Order of 29
August 2001 which purported to restrain the respondents from
making any fresh appointments after 01 April 2001. Learned
counsel however draws attention of the Court to the list of
Seasonal Collection Peon drawn by the respondents themselves
for the purposes of considering claims for regularization to
establish that many appointments have been made on 01 April
2001 by the respondents themselves.

4. More fundamentally, the Court takes into consideration the
facts noticed by a learned Judge in Sanjai Kumar Yadav And
Another Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others [Writ-A No.14459 of
2018]. The learned Judge had noted the undisputed fact that the
Government Order of 29 August 2001 had come to be
superseded by the subsequent Government Order of 21 June
2002. Dealing with a similar claim for regularization having
been refused by the respondents, the learned Judge observed
thus:-

"In the backdrop of undisputed facts, the services of the
petitioners could not have been terminated for violation of
Government Order dated 29 August 2001, admittedly, the said
Government order was superseded and non existent on the date
on which the petitioners were appointed Seasonal Collection
Amin. In other words, the Government order cannot became the
basis for termination under which petitioners were not
appointed. The Government order dated 21 August 2001, has
no reference to the petitioners directly or indirectly."

5. For the aforesaid reasons, the Court finds itself unable to
uphold the view as expressed in the order impugned.

6. Against the aforesaid order passed by learned Single Judge,
the State has preferred an special appeal numbered as Special
Appeal Defective No.1067 of 2020 (State of U.P. through
Secretary, Department of Revenue and 4 others vs. Sanjai
Kumar Yadav and another) which has also been dismissed by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 22.02.2019 and 18.04.2022 is quashed. The matter
shall stand remanded to the second respondent for deciding the
claim of the petitioner for regularization afresh and in light of
the observations made hereinabove. The exercise of
consideration shall be concluded with expedition and preferably
within a period of three months from today.

Order Date :- 24.4.2025
Saurabh Yadav/-

Digitally signed by :-
SAURABH YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…