Allowed

Ram Bihari Verma v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2018WRIA/300/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed impugned orders cancelling a petitioner's promotion due to violation of natural justice. The court held that no show cause notice or hearing was provided before passing the adverse order affecting the petitioner's civil rights.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 01.11.2004, 10.11.2004, 27.11.2004 and 22.12.2004 relating to the petitioner were set aside.

Ram Bihari Verma Vs State of U.P. and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 300 of 2005

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Bihari Verma Respondent :- State of U.P. and others Counsel for Petitioner :- Swarn Kumar Srivastava, Anil Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.C.Chaturvei

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsels for parties and perused the record.

¶7

By means of order dated 07.07.2003, passed by Superintendent Engineer (Minor Irrigation), petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000. After more than one year and two months, by means of impugned order dated 01.11.2004 the aforesaid order of promotion has been cancelled on the ground that Selection Committee was not constituted properly.

¶8

It is contended that before passing impugned order, no opportunity or show cause notice was given to petitioner though petitioner was entitled for compliance of principles of natural justice having already been promoted.

¶9

I find force in the submission.

¶10

It is well settled that any order adverse to interest of any person ought not to have been passed in violation of principles of natural of justice. It cannot be disputed that impugned order has civil consequence to petitioner.

¶11

In Bhagwan Shukla Vs Union of India and others, AIR 1994 SC 2480 Court has held:

¶12

"...........fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil

¶13

consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter."

¶14

Hence, impugned order being in violation of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained.

¶15

The writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 01.11.2004, 10.11.2004, 27.11.2004 and 22.12.2004 (Annexures-1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively to the writ petition), to the extent it relate to petitioner, are hereby set aside.

¶16

However, this order shall not preclude respondents from

¶17

passing a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 16.8.2018 PS

Ram Bihari Verma v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bihari Verma v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja Ram Vs D.D.C. and Others

Bhupendra Kumar Pandey Vs D.B.E.O. and Others

S.B. Lal Vs Collector

Devideen Karunakar Vs D.J. Banda and Another

Raj Kumar Gupta Vs Pramukh Sachiv Panchayati Raj ANUBHAG-2 Govt. of U.P.

Raj Bahadur Singh Gaur Vs State of U.P. and Others