Partly allowed

State of U.P. and Others v. Harendra Kumar and Others

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2019SPLAD/814/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court upheld the appointment of petitioners by setting aside an order that cancelled it without a hearing, applying natural justice principles. The pending special appeal against the interim order was dismissed as not maintainable, while the condonation of delay application was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; impugned order cancelled; special appeal dismissed; delay condoned.

State of U.P. and Others Vs Harendra Kumar and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

(1) Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 814 of 2008

¶4

Appellant :- State of U.P. and others Respondent :- Harendra Kumar and others Counsel for Appellant :- G.C. Upadhyay, S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Khare, Ashok Khare

¶5

(2) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19876 of 2008 Petitioner :- Harendra Kumar and others Respondent :- State of U.P. and others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare, Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsels for parties and perused the record.

¶8

This intra-Court appeal under Chapter 8 Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1952”) has been filed against an interim order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 19876 of 2008 and hence writ petition itself was connected with this appeal so that both the matters may be decided together.

¶9

From the writ petition, it appears that petitioners were selected and appointed on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari vide appointment letter dated 10.01.2008 and they joined pursuant thereto. After two and half months, an order was passed on 31.03.2008 cancelling aforesaid appointment on the ground that inquiry was conducted by appellants wherein they found some irregularity in the selection.

¶10

It is admitted by learned Standing Counsel that before passing impugned order dated 31.03.2008 neither any show cause notice was issued to petitioners nor they were given any opportunity and hence principles of natural justice were not complied with.

¶11

Since petitioners were already appointed and working on the

¶12

¶13

post, no order adverse to their interest ought to have been passed without giving any opportunity in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Shridhar vs. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur and others, AIR 1990 SC 307 wherein Court said:

¶14

"It is an elementary principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned without hearing. The order of appointment conferred a vested right in the appellant to hold the post of Tax Inspector, that right could not be taken away without affording opportunity of hearing to him. Any order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is rendered void. There is no dispute that the Commissioner's Order had been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant therefore the order was illegal and void."

¶15

In Shrawan Kumar Jha and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 SC 309 Court said:

¶16

"In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the appellants should have been given an opportunity of hearing before cancelling their appointments. Admittedly, no such opportunity was afforded to them. It is well settled that no order to the detriment of the appellants could be passed without complying with the rules of natural justice."

¶17

Again in Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India & others AIR 1994 SC 2480, Court has held:

¶18

“ fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter .”

¶19

In view thereof, order dated 31.03.2008 cannot be sustained.

¶20

So far as Special Appeal is concerned, we find that this is directed against an interim order, which cannot be said to be a judgment and, therefore, this appeal, even otherwise, is not

¶21

¶22

maintainable.

¶23

In the result, Writ Petition No. 19876 of 2008 is hereby allowed. The order dated 31.03.2008 is hereby set aside. Petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. However, this order shall not preclude respondents from passing a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶24

The Special Appeal (Def.) No. 814 of 2008 is dismissed. Dt. 08.04.2019 PS

¶25

¶26

Court No. - 34

¶27

C.M. Delay Condonation Application No. 256623 of 2008 In

¶28

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 814 of 2008

¶29

Appellant :- State of U.P. and others Respondent :- Harendra Kumar and others Counsel for Appellant :- G.C. Upadhyay, S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Khare, Ashok Khare

¶30

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.

¶31

This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.

¶32

Heard.

¶33

Cause shown is sufficient.

¶34

Delay in filing appeal is hereby condoned.

¶35

This application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶36

Let appeal be registered with regular number and old number shall also continue to be shown in bracket for finding out details of case, whenever required by parties with reference to either of the two number.

¶37

Dt. 08.04.2019 PS

State of U.P. and Others v. Harendra Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. and Others v. Harendra Kumar 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

Dhruv Singh Vs State

Sanjay Jaiswal Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Harish Tandon Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandra Pal Singh Vs District Inspector of Schools Allahabad and Others

Ram Charan Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Harendra Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others