JUDGMENT : Abdul Moin, J. 1. Heard Shri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, Shri Namit Sharma along with Shri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsels for the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. 2. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the contesting parties contend that the issue involved in both the writ petitions is same. As such, the Court proceeds to hear and decide both the writ petitions together by a common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Writ - A No. - 23739 of 2021 are being taken into consideration. 3. This is a peculiar case and peculiarities are indicated in the body of the judgment. 4. Instant petition has been filed praying for following main reliefs :- "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned office memorandum dated 26.8.2021 passed by the opposite party No.3 and, impugned letter/ order dated 28.7.2021 issued by the opposite party No.1, as contained in Annexure No.1 and 2 respectively to writ petition. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the oral termination order dated 1.9.2021 passed by the opposite party No.3. iii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to work and discharge duties on the post of Lighter/ Porter (Class-IV post) in Street Light Department of Nagar Nigam, Lucknow and pay him salary regularly in pursuance to the regularization order dated 23.6.2021 (Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition)." 5. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on a contract basis in Nagar Nigam, Lucknow on 01.09.1998 and had continued for sufficiently long time. A Government Order dated 23.07.2012 was issued by Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh and addressed to all District Magistrates, all Municipal Commissioners, etc. for terminating the services of the employees engaged in an irregular manner or on contract/temporary basis. 6. The said Government Order was challenged by the petitioner along with several others by filing various writ petitions. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is Writ Petition No. 6755 (S/S) of 2012 in re: Vinay Kumar Shukla & 32 Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 7. 6. The said Government Order was challenged by the petitioner along with several others by filing various writ petitions. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is Writ Petition No. 6755 (S/S) of 2012 in re: Vinay Kumar Shukla & 32 Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 7. All the writ petitions were decided by means of judgment and order dated 02.02.2018 leading being writ petition No. 4334 (S/S) of 2012 in re: Neeraj Babu Vs. State of U.P. and Ors whereby the writ petitions were dismissed. The copy of the judgment and order dated 02.02.2018 is Annexure No. 10 to the petition. However, despite dismissal of writ petition, the petitioner continued to work and discharge duties under the respondents. 8. Certain persons, being aggrieved by the said judgment, filed various special appeals. One of the Special Appeals was Special Appeal (Defective) No. 96 of 2018 in re: Umesh Chandra Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. The Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 14.03.2018, a copy of which is Annexure No. 11 to the petition, directed for maintenance of status quo as it existed on the date of judgment of the writ Court to be continued to be maintained. 9. Incidentally, the petitioner did not prefer any special appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 02.02.2018 at that stretch of time. 10. Subsequent thereto, in the year 2020 the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 18342 (S/S) of 2020 in re: Ajay Bajpai & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. , in which the petitioner was petitioner no. 4, praying for a direction to the respondent no.1 i.e. the State to take decision for creation of supernumerary posts for the regularization of the petitioners' services working in the street light department of Lucknow considering the provisions of U.P. Regularization of Persons working on Daily Wages or Work Charged or on Contract in Government Departments on Group - C and Group D Posts (outside the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2016"). 11. 11. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 22.10.2020, a copy of which is Annexure No. 12 to the petition, with a direction to the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow to take a decision on the representation of the petitioners taking into consideration the judgment and order dated 04.02.2020 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2983 (S/S) of 2020 in re: Irfan Affas and others vs. State of U.P. and others. 12. In pursuance thereof, the respondent - Nagar Nigam, Lucknow passed an order dated 23.06.2021, a copy of which is Annexure No. 13 to the petition, whereby the service of the petitioner was regularized on a vacant post of Lighter/Porter in the Pay Scale of Rs.5200-20200/- and Grade Pay of 2400/- with effect from 23.06.2021. 13. In the meanwhile, the State Government issued the order impugned dated 28.07.2021 directing the Nagar Nigam to modify the regularisation orders already issued by indicating that the said regularisation would be subject to the final order passed in the special appeal. 14. Strangely, despite his regularization on 23.06.2021, the petitioner preferred a Special Appeal (Defective) No. 284 of 2021 in re: Shiv Kumar and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others , on 17.08.2021 in which the petitioner was appellant no. 3. However, the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of changed circumstances vide order dated 19.08.2021, a copy of which is Annexure No. 16 to the petition. 15. The matter may have attained a quietus thereto but for the fact that the respondents, vide order dated 21.08.2021, a copy of which is Annexure No. 15 to the petition, considering an order that had been issued by the State Government, directed the petitioner to submit papers or documents pertaining to the special appeal that he might have filed against the order of the writ Court of the year 2018. 16. Subsequent thereto, the bunch of special appeals that had been filing challenging the judgment and order dated 02.02.2018 were decided by the Division Bench of this Court leading being Special Appeal No. 96 of 2018 in re: Umesh Chandra Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Others vide judgment and order dated 23.09.2022. 17. 16. Subsequent thereto, the bunch of special appeals that had been filing challenging the judgment and order dated 02.02.2018 were decided by the Division Bench of this Court leading being Special Appeal No. 96 of 2018 in re: Umesh Chandra Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Others vide judgment and order dated 23.09.2022. 17. Though various directions had been issued by the Division Bench of this Court pertaining to the appellants therein yet a perusal of paragraph 15 of the judgment would indicate that the Division Bench of this Court was of the view that for those persons who were continuing even after 12.09.2016 i.e. the date of effect of Rules, 2016, the rights had crystallized in such contractual employees to be considered for regularization of their services on the basis of the provisions contained in the Rules, 2016 which could not be denied to them. 18. Incidentally, the judgment and order dated 23.09.2022 has been affirmed with the dismissal of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 18904 of 2023 in re: Nagar Ayukta Lucknow Nagar Nigam Lucknow U.P. & another Vs. Umesh Chandra Yadav & others vide the order dated 05.07.2023, as indicated in the order annexed with supplementary affidavit (I.A. No. 5 of 2024). 19. Subsequent thereto, the respondents, vide impugned order dated 26.08.2021, a copy of which is Annexure No. 1 to the petition, have cancelled the regularization order of the petitioner dated 23.06.2021 on the ground that in the special appeal which has been filed by various other persons the name of the petitioner does not find place and the special appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as withdrawn on 19.08.2021. 20. Thereafter, the respondents have also orally terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from 01.09.2021. 21. However, vide interim order dated 08.10.2021 passed in the instant petition, this Court has provided that the petitioner's services in Class - IV in Municipal Corporation shall not be dispensed with, which interim order still continues and the petitioner continues to work on a Class IV post. 22. 21. However, vide interim order dated 08.10.2021 passed in the instant petition, this Court has provided that the petitioner's services in Class - IV in Municipal Corporation shall not be dispensed with, which interim order still continues and the petitioner continues to work on a Class IV post. 22. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when despite the order of writ Court dated 02.02.2018 vide which writ petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed and the services of the petitioner have already been regularized on 23.06.2021 consequently there was no occasion for the petitioner to have challenged the judgment and order dated 02.02.2018. However in his wisdom the petitioner filed the special appeal against the judgment and order dated 02.02.2018 which was dismissed as withdrawn considering the fact that he already stood regularized and further no cause of action subsisted thereafter for the petitioner to have challenged the judgment and order dated 02.02.2018. 23. Even otherwise, the special appeal which had been filed by various persons who were aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 02.02.2018 has been allowed. Even though directions had been issued pertaining to the appellants-petitioners of the said special appeals yet a general direction had also been issued and as per paragraph 15 of the judgment passed in Umesh Chandra Yadav (Supra) on 23.09.2022, regularization of the persons who were continuing in service was required to be considered in terms of Rules, 2016 and in fact, the same was considered by the respondents and the services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 23.06.2021 and consequently the ground which has been prevailed by the respondent in now cancelling the regularization of the services of the petitioner vide order dated 28.07.2021 merits to be set aside on these grounds alone more particularly when the petitioner has been in service since the year 1998. 24. On the aforesaid grounds, it is argued that the consequential order impugned dated 26.08.2021 also merits to be set aside. 25. On the other hand, Shri Namit Sharma along with Shri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsels for the respondent/Corporation have argued that the fact of the matter remains that the petitioner along with others had challenged the Government Order dated 23.07.2012 which had directed for termination of the services of the employees engaged in irregular manner or on contract/temporary basis which writ petitions were dismissed on 02.02.2018. The special appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment and order dated 02.02.2018 was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.08.2021. Thus, the validity of the Government Order dated 23.07.2012 was upheld so far as it pertains to the petitioner and the petitioner stood dismissed from service considering the Government Order dated 23.07.2012 which fact was not noticed by the respondents while passing the regularization order date 23.06.2021. As other persons were aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.2018 they filed the special appeals and the order of status quo had been granted by the Division Bench of this Court consequently, the petitioner was also required to submit the documents pertaining to the special appeal that might have been filed by him. The petitioner had however already filed a special appeal and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.08.2021 meaning thereby the judgment and order dated 02.02.2018, so far as it pertains to the petitioner, had attained finality and consequently once an error had been committed by the respondents by regularising the services of the petitioner consequently no error has been committed by them by passing order dated 26.08.2021 vide which regularisation order of the services of the petitioner had been cancelled. Also, there is no error in the order dated 28.07.2021 whereby the State Government had directed the regularization of the petitioner subject to the outcome of the special appeal and as the special appeal filed by the petitioner already stands dismissed, as such there is no question of regularizing of the services of the petitioner. 26. It is also contended that no post is now lying vacant on which the petitioner can continue. 27. Heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the records. 28. From the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the contesting parties and perusal of records it emerges that the petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis in the Nagar Nigam in the year 1998. The Government order dated 23.07.2012 was issued for terminating the services of the employees engaged in an irregular manner/contract/temporary basis. The writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the said Government order was dismissed along with several other petitions vide judgment and order dated 02.02.2018. However, despite issuance of the said Government order and the writ petition being dismissed, the petitioner continued to work. The writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the said Government order was dismissed along with several other petitions vide judgment and order dated 02.02.2018. However, despite issuance of the said Government order and the writ petition being dismissed, the petitioner continued to work. In the meanwhile, the Rules, 2016 had been issued for regularization and the petitioner being found eligible for regularization, was regularized vide order dated 23.06.2021. The matter would have ended at this but for the fact that the petitioner in his wisdom chose to file a special appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 02.02.2018. The said special appeal was thereafter withdrawn by the petitioner in view of the changed circumstances considering that he already stood regularized in service despite the Government order dated 23.07.2012 having been upheld with dismissal of the writ petition. The respondents vide order dated 21.08.2021 considering an earlier order issued by the State Government directed the petitioner to submit papers and documents pertaining to the special appeal that he might have filed against the order of the writ Court of the year 2018. 29. The said order was issued considering the order issued by the State Government dated 28.07.2021 that had required the regularization order of the persons to indicate that the same was subject to the special appeal. As the special appeal filed by the petitioner had already been withdrawn by him on account of his regularization consequently, the respondents passed the order impugned dated 26.08.2021 cancelling the regularization order of the petitioner dated 23.06.2021 on the ground that in the special appeal which has been filed by various other persons, the name of the petitioner does not find placed and the special appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as withdrawn on 19.08.2021. 30. The peculiar facts with which the Court is seized are that the petitioner has been working right since the year 1998 and despite dismissal of the writ petition filed by him challenging the Government order dated 23.07.2012 per which the services were to be terminated, he stood regularized by the respondents themselves without any concealment or misrepresentation on his part. The peculiar facts with which the Court is seized are that the petitioner has been working right since the year 1998 and despite dismissal of the writ petition filed by him challenging the Government order dated 23.07.2012 per which the services were to be terminated, he stood regularized by the respondents themselves without any concealment or misrepresentation on his part. The special appeal that had been filed by the other persons challenging the judgment and order dated 02.02.2018 have all been disposed of with certain directions vide judgment and order dated 23.09.2022 passed in bunch of special appeals, the leading being Appeal of Umesh Chandra Yadav (supra) with a spate of directions. But for the fact that the petitioner withdrew the special appeal on account of he having been regularized in service, he would also have been entitled for the benefit of the order passed in the special appeal vide judgment and order dated 23.09.2022. However, despite the aforesaid facts, the services have been dispensed with on the ground that the special appeal filed by him has been withdrawn without considering that the withdrawal of the special appeal was on account of the petitioner having already been regularized in service even prior to filing of the special appeal, the regularization order being dated 23.06.2021, the special appeal having been filed on 17.08.2021 and having been withdrawn on 19.08.2021. 31. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 23.09.2022 in the case of Umesh Chandra Yadav (supra) had issued the following directions:- "26. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account the right of the appellants-petitioners of being considered for regularization under the Regularization Rules, 2016 which admittedly have been enforced by means of the notification dated 12.09.2016 and have been adopted to be applicable to the Urban Local Bodies by means of the Government Order dated 03.01.2017, we dispose of this bunch of special appeals with the following directions;- (i) Cases of all the appellants-petitioners shall be considered for regularization of their services in terms of the provisions contained in Regularization Rules, 2016. (ii) Accordingly, the appointing authority shall prepare an eligibility list of the candidates, who may be found eligible to be considered for regularization of their services in terms of the Regularization Rules, 2016 within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the authority concerned. (iii) The appointing authority shall constitute a Selection Committee as per the provisions contained in the Regularization Rules, 2016 and refer the eligibility list to be prepared in terms of the Regularization Rules, 2016 to the Selection Committee which shall adjudge the suitability of the eligible candidates and take decision for regularizing their services. This exercise shall be completed, as observed above in (ii) within three months from the date this order is communicated to the authority concerned. (iv) In case on completion of this exercise in the respective Unban Local Bodies where the appellants-petitioners were engaged/are working, certain eligible contractual employees still remain to be considered for regularization for want of vacant posts, the Local Body concerned shall seek approval of the State Government for creation of supernumerary posts in terms of the provisions contained in the proviso appended to rule 5 of the Regularization Rules, 2016. (v) In case of such a need, the proposal seeking approval of the State Government for creation of supernumerary posts shall be made by the Local Body concerned to the State Government at the earliest after the exercise of regularizing the services of contractual employees against the available vacant posts is completed. (vi) Once any such proposal from the respective Urban Local Bodies is received by the State Government seeking approval for creation of supernumerary posts, the State Government shall take decision thereon as mandated by the proviso appended to Rule 5 of the Regularization Rules, 2016 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of proposal. (vii) Once the approval for creation of supernumerary post is accorded by the State Government, the process of regularizing the services of remaining contractual employees, who could not be regularized for want of availability of vacant post shall be initiated and completed within next three months thereafter. (viii) We also direct that cases of all the appellants-petitioners in this bunch of special appeals shall be considered afresh for regularization of their services in terms of the Regularization Rules, 2016 irrespective of any such exercise having earlier been done. (viii) We also direct that cases of all the appellants-petitioners in this bunch of special appeals shall be considered afresh for regularization of their services in terms of the Regularization Rules, 2016 irrespective of any such exercise having earlier been done. (viii) Those appellants-petitioners who are continuing as on today shall continue to work till their cases for regularization under the Regularization Rules 2016 are considered and decided in terms of this order. However, once any contractual employee is not found eligible and suitable for regularization of his/her services, his/her services shall be terminated in terms of the provisions contained in Regularization Rules, 2016." 32. However, the aforesaid directions may not have any applicability for the petitioner inasmuch as he had already been regularized in service. Consequently, it is the observations as made in paragraph 15 of the judgment and order dated 23.09.2022 in the aforesaid special appeal which would be applicable on the petitioner which for the sake of convenience are reproduced below:- "15......... Accordingly, so far as the applicability of Regularization Rules, 2016 in the case of the appellants-petitioners in this bunch of special appeals is concerned, in view of what has been observed by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 10.04.2017 the rules may not apply to those contractual employees whose services were dispensed with prior to the date of enforcement of the Regularization Rules, 2016, that is to say, prior to 12.09.2016, however those who are continuing even after the said date i.e. after 12.09.2016 the rights crystallized in such contractual employees to be considered for regularization of their services on the basis of the provisions contained in Regularization Rules, 2016, in our considered opinion, cannot be denied to them." (emphasized by the Court) 33. From a perusal of the aforesaid observations, it is apparent that the Division Bench was of the view that those persons who are continuing even after the date of promulgation of the Rules i.e 12.09.2016, a right stood crystallized in such contractual employees to be considered for regularization of their service on the basis of the Rules, 2016. Admittedly, the petitioner was continuing in service on the date of promulgation of the Rules i.e 12.09.2016 and thus he was correctly regularized vide order dated 23.06.2021. Admittedly, the petitioner was continuing in service on the date of promulgation of the Rules i.e 12.09.2016 and thus he was correctly regularized vide order dated 23.06.2021. Thus, once the petitioner already stood regularized there was no occasion for a Government order dated 28.07.2021 to be issued indicating that the regularization was subject to decision of the special appeal, so far as it pertains to the petitioner and for that matter for the consequential impugned order dated 26.08.2021 to be issued by the Nagar Nigam cancelling the regularization order of the petitioner. 44. In this regard, it would be apt to refer of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Anr Vs. Bikartan Das and ors- (2023) SCC OnLine SC 996 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:- "51. The second cardinal principle of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is that in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law, it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations, not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not." 35. Consequently, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is thus apparent that the Government order dated 28.07.2021 merits to be quashed so far as it pertains to the petitioner along with the order dated 26.08.2021. 36. Consequently, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is thus apparent that the Government order dated 28.07.2021 merits to be quashed so far as it pertains to the petitioner along with the order dated 26.08.2021. 36. So far as the ground taken by the respondents that the regularization order of the petitioner was irregular, the same may not detain the Court keeping in view of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Chandra Yadav (supra) as reproduced above per which the petitioner acquired a right to be regularized in view of the Rules, 2016. 37. So far as the ground that no post is now lying vacant on which the petitioner can continue as urged by the respondents, the said ground is found to be patently misconceived inasmuch as the regularization order of the petitioner dated 23.06.2021 itself indicates that the petitioner has been regularized against a vacant post of Lighter/Porter in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 and thus if at this stretch of time, no post is lying vacant, the same will not effect the case of the petitioner. 38. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed . The orders impugned dated 26.08.2021, a cop of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition and order dated 28.07.2021, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition so far as it pertains to the petitioner, respectively, are quashed. 39. Consequences to follow. 40. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents states that there might be some difficulty in fixing the seniority of the petitioner viz-a- viz the other persons who have been regularized in pursuance to the order of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Chandra Yadav (supra) subsequent to the petitioner. As already indicated above, this order has been passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be considered as a precedent.