Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J. :- 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner today, is taken on record. 2. In pursuance of the order passed passed by this Court dated 10.1.2011, the Principal Secretary, Law Department, along with Advocate General, is present in person. Affidavits have been exchanged. 3. Prima facie case is made out to admit the case. According, we admit the writ petition. 4. Two interim orders were passed in the bunch of writ petitions, with regard to extension of service of DGC Criminal and Civil, i.e., 4.9.2008 and 30.11.2009. The interim orders were the subject matter of dispute before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the said orders by providing that all those State Counsel, who have been benefited by the order dated 4.9.2008, shall not be disturbed till final disposal of the cases. The observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-25 of the judgment and order dated 3.12.2010, is reproduced as under: "25. In view of the above, both the appeals succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.11.2009 and 4.9.2008 are hereby set aside. However, In view of the peculiar fact-situation existing herein, the order (s), if any, passed by the State Authorities under the interim order dated 4.9.2008, would not be disturbed till the final disposal of the cases." 5. In pursuance of the interim order dated 4.9.2008, passed by this Court, a consequential order was passed by the State Government dated 21.9.2008 a copy of which is contained in Annexure No.9 to the writ petition. Submission of the petitioners' counsel is that in terms of the interim order dated 4.9.2008 followed by the Circular dated 21.9.2008, the District Magistrates have permitted the petitioners to continue in service as State Counsel. Submission is that while issuing the impugned order dated 11.12.2010, Government has not taken care with regard to the exception given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-25 of the judgment and order dated 3.12.2010. 6. Once, the Circular dated 21.9.2008 was issued that too, was implemented by the District Magistrates, then while passing the impugned order dated 11.12.2010, the State should have taken care with regard to earlier consequential Circular dated 21.9.2008. Learned Advocate General submits that service of none of the DGC working in the Districts were renewed in terms of interim order dated 4.9.2008 hence, they are not entitled to any benefit. 7. Learned Advocate General submits that service of none of the DGC working in the Districts were renewed in terms of interim order dated 4.9.2008 hence, they are not entitled to any benefit. 7. In response to submission made by the learned Advocate General, attention has been invited to the pleading contained in para-19 of the writ petition, with regard to district Basti. For convenience, para-19 of the writ petition is reproduced as under: "19. That it relevant to point out that pursuant to order, dated 21.09.2008, all such order prohibiting the District Govt. Counsel to continue after attaining the age of sixty years, were concelled by the respective District Magistrates. As a result, they continued even after sixty years age. Once such order passed in favour of Sri Prem Prakash Srivastava, ADGC (Criminal) is stated here: ''???????? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ???-????/??? ??/?????? ??.?.???? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????????, ????? ???? ?????? ????????, ????? ?? ?????? ??.??.???? ?? ????????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ???-????/???-?????-?-??-??? ???/???? ?????? ?? ???????, ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????/??? ??/?????? ??.?.???? ?????????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? (???? ?????) ftyk eftLVªsV] ?????aa?" 8. A perusal of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Basti, it appears that the District Magistrate, in compliance of the interim order dated 4.9.2008 followed by the consequential Circular dated 21.9.2008, had permitted the State Counsel concerned Sri Prem Prakash Srivastava, to continue in service till it is set aside. Thus, it appears that benefit was extended by the District magistrate in compliance of the interim order dated 4.9.2008 followed by the Circular dated 21.9.2008. Once benefit has been extended, then in terms of para-25 of the Apex Court judgment, State Counsel shall be entitled to continue till disposal of writ petition. 9. Accordingly, prima facie, it appears that while issuing the impugned circular, the State should have taken into account the exception provided in para-25 of the judgment and order dated 3.12.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as earlier Circular dated 21.9.2008. 9. Accordingly, prima facie, it appears that while issuing the impugned circular, the State should have taken into account the exception provided in para-25 of the judgment and order dated 3.12.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as earlier Circular dated 21.9.2008. In case any State Counsel has been permitted to continue in terms of the Circular dated 21.9.2008 which was issued compliance of interim order dated 4.9.2008, then he or she prima facie, seems to be entitled to continue in service till final disposal of the case or till completion of 62 years of age whichever, is earlier and their service, cannot be disturbed. 10. In view of the above, the impugned Circular dated 11.12.2010, is stayed subject to aforesaid observations. It is clarified that in case no person has been permitted to continue in service in terms of the interim order dated 4.9.2008, followed by Circular dated 21.9.2008, then, he or she shall not be entitled for benefit of present order keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. 11. List on 20.1.2011 for peremptorily hearing along with other identical writ petitions. 12. A certified copy of this order shall be given to the parties counsel within three days on usual charges. Order Date :- 12.1.2011 [Justice Virendra Kumar Dixit] [Justice Devi Prasad Singh] Rajneesh) Asstt. Registrar-Cum-PS-II)