Quashed

Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2020WRIA/5085/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad quashed an order terminating the petitioner's contractual services, holding that the authorities failed to serve a show cause notice or afford an opportunity of being heard as required by natural justice, and the order is liable to be withdrawn. No section codes were cited.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 31.3.2020 terminating the petitioner's services is quashed. The respondents are directed to call for a petitioner's explanation and pass a fresh order after considering it.

Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5085 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhay Raj Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶3

While entertaining the writ petition, following orders were passed on 7.7.2020.

¶4

"The defects reported by Stamp Reporter are being ignored due to prevailing Covid19 infection and Counsel for the petitioner may remove the same as and when Covid-19 infection subsides.

¶5

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner who was appointed vide letter dated 27.09.2018 on contractual basis could not have been removed on 31.03.2020 when the pandemic of Covid-19 was at its peak. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the Government Circular dated 27.05.2020 wherein it is stated that services of health workers who were working under the Ayushmaan Bharat- Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana, would be extended.

¶6

Learned Standing Counsel however submits that the minutes dated 20.03.2020 must be seen for gleaning out the reasons as to why the petitioner's services was dispensed with.

¶7

Put up this petition as fresh case on 13.07.2020 and on that date learned Standing Counsel shall produce the minutes dated 20.03.2020."

¶8

Again on 13.7.2020, this Court proceeds to pass following orders:-

¶9

"The counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner as well as two other persons namely Awdhesh Kumar and Deepak Gautam were appointed on contractual basis. He further states that as per the report dated 20.3.2020, the work in District Chitrakoot was satisfactory and much better than other Districts, he further argues that only the petitioner has been singled out whereas the other persons Awdhesh Kumar and Deepak Gautam are still in continuing.

¶10

Put up this case as a fresh case on 22.7.2020.

¶11

By which date, the Standing Counsel is directed to seek instructions with regard to the averments made in paragraph 29 of the writ petition in respect of the services of the other two similarly placed persons."

¶12

The matter was again adjourned and on 13.7.2020, this Court passed the following order:-

¶13

"In compliance of order dated 7.7.2020, learned standing counsel has placed on record the minutes of the meetings dated 5.2.2020 and 20.3.2020. In the minutes of the meeting dated 5.2.2020, it was resolved at Item No.20 that show cause notice be issued to the petitioner and two other employees to show cause as to why their contract should not be terminated as their work was not satisfactory. The specific case of the petitioner is that the impugned order terminating his service was passed

¶14

without serving any notice and affording opportunity of hearing to him (paragraph 34 to the writ petition).

¶15

In the meeting dated 20.3.2020, it was resolved that the services of the petitioner be terminated since 31.3.2020 as his work was not satisfactory. There is no mention about issuance of any show cause notice. Learned standing counsel submitted that notice was given to the petitioner on 15.2.2020.

¶16

There is no indication as to whether alleged notice was ever served upon the petitioner.

¶17

Learned standing counsel seeks time to clarify the said aspect by filing a short counter affidavit within ten days, which is allowed.

¶18

As prayed put up as fresh on 14.8.2020. In the meantime, respondents shall file counter affidavit clarifying the above aspect.

¶19

It shall also be clarified in the counter affidavit whether the respondents are taking work from other two persons, to whom also show cause notices were to be issued, calling for their reply."

¶20

A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which two orders dated 15.2.2020 and 3.3.2020 contained in Annexures 5 & 6 have been annexed by the respondents as amounting to issuance of show cause notice in the matter.

¶21

Though three persons were initially appointed along with petitioner on similar terms, but while petitioner's engagement has been discontinued, the other two persons continue to work. The ground for petitioner's disengagement is unsatisfactory work. So far as the order dated 15.2.2020 is concerned, it merely records that in the meeting dated 5.2.2020, a decision was taken to issue notice to the petitioner as to why his services be not dispensed with on account of unsatisfactory work. Petitioner has also been warned that in the event he fails to improve his work, his services were liable to be terminated. The subsequent letter of Chief Medical Officer dated 3.3.2020 is addressed to three persons specifying that in case these three persons do not complete their work, then strict action would be taken against them.

¶22

From a perusal of the above two orders, it is apparent that though petitioner was warned and a decision was also taken in the Committee to call for petitioner's explanation, but infact his explanation was never called. No such show cause notice in respect of his unsatisfactory work has been brought on record by the respondents.

¶23

In terms of the decision taken on 15.2.2020, the respondents ought to have called for petitioner's explanation, but that has not been done. The unilateral discontinuation of petitioner's services, in such circumstances, without calling for petitioner's explanation cannot be approved. The order dated 31.3.2020 contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition consequently stands quashed. The respondents shall be at liberty to call for petitioner's explanation and after considering the same, may pass a fresh order. Any decision to fill up the post shall be taken only after passing of such order.

¶24

The concerned Authority / Official shall verify the authenticity of computerized copy of this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall act accordingly without waiting for submission of the certified copy of this order.

¶25

Order Date :- 21.9.2020

¶26

Arif

Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Pal Singh and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sudhir Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

In the Matter of Goods of Late Vimla Devi Daughter Ofjhurai by Smt. Sunita Chadha Vs N.A.

Satyapal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mohammad Sameer Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr Hem Prakash and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another