Allahabad High Court
Santosh Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agri. ... on 14 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:72983
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 12916 of 2025
Santosh Kumar Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agri. Edu. And Research Lko. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Deep Narayan Tripathi, Akash Deep
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Singh, Satyanshu Ojha
Court No. - 18
HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Satyanshu Ojha, learned counsel for the Acharya Narendra Dev Agriculture University, Ayodhya, Sri Arun Pratap Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
The challenge is laid to the order dated 10-09-2025 passed by the opposite party no. 2 to the extent that there is an observation that the petitioner is working since 2012, whereas, the fact remains that the petitioner is working since January,2001 as daily wager and in the year 2002, he preferred Writ Petition No. 4677(S/S) of 2002 for regularization of his services, wherein, this Court directed for payment of the minimum of the pay scale. He submits that the order of regularization has the perverse finding as an admitted fact, has apparently been declined and therefore, the very genesis and basis of consideration of the regularization of the services of the petitioner with respect to the cut off date, has become incorrect. He submitted that infact there is a direction for payment of minimum of the pay-scale and being annoyed, the services of the petitioner, have been terminated. He also submitted that the government order dated 21-12-2020 is clear that the cut off date is extended from 16-04-1992 to 16-04-2002 and ignoring the same and on wrong pretext, the order impugned has been passed. Therefore, submission is that the order impugned is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. He further submits that the petitioner is entitled for minimum of the pay-scale for the period, he worked.
On the other hand, Sri Satyanshu Ojha, appearing for the respondent-university, has opposed the matter on merits, and submitted that the petitioner did not work continuously in the university and there are no artificial gaps, but, there is a gap of about two years and eight months in the service, but, he has failed to refute the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an observation in the impugned order that the petitioner is working since 2012 which is utterly wrong fact.
Upon considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner is working in the department since the year 2001, though there is a dispute regarding his continuous working in the department. The cut off date which has been extended vide the government order dated 21-12-2020, is 16-04-2002, which has been extended from the earlier cut off date i.e. 16-04-1992, extended on the request of the respondent-university.
This Court has noticed that while deciding the representation of the petitioner, in compliance of the order dated 19-02-2025, passed in Writ A No. 4258 of 2024, the facts are mentioned that the petitioner is working in the department since the year 2012, thus, this was in the mind of the authority that the appointment of the petitioner is after the cut off date i.e. the year 2002.
The question that whether the petitioner was working in the department or not, is another issue, which is to be dealt with in further course of action.
Consequently, the order dated 10-09-2025 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed with respect to the present petitioner.
The matter is remitted back to the opposite party no. 2/Vice Chancellor, Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology,Kumarganj, Ayodhya to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services, afresh within a period of two months, with speaking and reasoned order, from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
Needless to say that in the earlier order, the direction was for payment of minimum of the pay-scale, thus, it is expected that the authority concerned shall undertake the proceedings with respect to payment of the same.
It is provided that till a decision is taken by the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-university, the petitioner shall be allowed to work.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
(Shree Prakash Singh,J.) November 14, 2025 AKS