JUDGMENT Honble D.P. Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashok Mehta for the official liquidator and the learned Standing Counsel for the other respondents. On 30th October, 2006 the respondents were granted six weeks time to file counter-affidavit. Again four weeks and no more time for filing counter-affidavit were granted on 18.12.2006. Inspite of that no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents. Thus, the Court is left with no other option but to decide the case on the material available on record. 3. The petitioners were working on various posts from prior to 1.10.1986 in the U.P. Cement Corporation Limited. However, the Corporation became sick and was wound up in 1999 and services of large number of employees, including the petitioners were retrenched. They preferred various Writ Petitions claiming absorption in view of U.P. Absorption of Retrenched Employee of Government or Public Corporation in Government Service Rules, 1991 and this Honble Court vide different orders and judgment finally disposed off the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to consider their claim and pass a reasoned order. In pursuance thereof the impugned order dated 2.5.2006 has been passed and the claim has been rejected on three grounds. Firstly, it held that the petitioner has not been declared as a retrenched employee. The second ground taken is that the Retrenchment Rules, 1991 have been replaced by the Retrenchment Rules of 2003 and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit under the 1991 Rules. 4. Both the grounds have been considered in detail by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shailendra Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 36644 of 2003) decided on 6.1.2004 and both the grounds have been held to be invalid. The Court held that since admittedly the petitioner was an employee prior to October 1986 of the Cement Corporation, no formal certificate of retrenchment is required and further that since the rights of the petitioner had crystallized under the 1991 Rules, his case would be covered by the said Rules. 5. The third ground on which claim has been rejected is that the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. M.L. Singh (S.L.P. No. 7235 of 2005) has stayed a similar order of this Court and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled. 5. The third ground on which claim has been rejected is that the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. M.L. Singh (S.L.P. No. 7235 of 2005) has stayed a similar order of this Court and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled. From the record, it is apparent that Shri M.L. Singh had already been appointed by the respondents vide an order dated 17.11.2004 and is continuing to function as such but similar wages as drawn earlier was also claimed which has been stayed by the Apex Court, therefore, the said interim order would not cover the case of the petitioner. Thus, none of the grounds taken in the impugned order can be sustained. 6. Normally the Court does not grant the relief itself, but it remands the matter to the concerned authority for reconsideration, but in the present case, those very ground have been cited to reject the claim of the petitioner which had earlier been rejected by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Shailendra Kumar Pandeys case (supra). This was inspite of the fact that respondent was directed by order dated 21.2.2006 to consider the claim of the petitioner, keeping in mind the decision in Shailendra Kumar Pandeys case (supra). Thus, on these facts, it would be futile to remand it again. 7. For the reasons given above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.3.2006 is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners in any vacancy on Group C post (outside the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. ————