Disposed

Nida Farheen v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2020WRIA/9310/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking protection against arbitrary termination. It held that the petitioner, appointed through due process after an advertisement, cannot be terminated without a hearing. The court directed the respondents to not terminate the service without due procedure and to pay salary arrears.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to terminate the petitioner's service without due procedure and hearing, and to pay salary arrears.

Nida Farheen Vs Union of India and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9310 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Nida Farheen Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Krishna Singh,Sr. Advocate Shri Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Hari Krishna Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there exists a Rampur Raza Library at Rampur governed by the provisions of Rampur Raza Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 22 of 1975). Under Section 28 of the Act, 1975 Regulations are framed, by which service of the petitioner is governed. 48th meeting of Board, presided by Chairman/Governor of State was held on 17.7.2018 at Raj Bhawan, Lucknow and vide item No. 18, it was considered to advertise the posts of Library. Minutes of the meeting was signed by Chairman of Board/Governor of State and Director/Member Secretary on 3.8.2018. In pursuance of the aforesaid decision, advertisement was issued in newspaper 'Rojgar Samachar' and 'Employment News' dated 15.12.2018 inviting applications for the different posts including the post of Technical Restorer. The petitioner being fully qualified applied for the post of Technical Restorer. Interview letter dated 3.2.2020 was issued to the petitioner fixing date of interview on 16.2.2020 and the petitioner participated in the interview. In 49th meeting of the Board held on 20.12.2019 Professor Abdul Ali was nominated as Chairman of Committee by Chairman of the Board/Governor of State. Other members are one Sri Ram Pravesh, Former Director/Conservation, National Museum, New Delhi and Consultant (Conservation), Indian Museum, Kolkata/Member, Conservation Subcommittee of Rampur Raza Library having nominee of Ministry of Culture and Ashish Kumar under Secretary (Libraries), Ministry of Culture. Interview was held on 16.2.2020 by Selection Committee and name of petitioner was recommended for appointment. Director issued appointment letter dated 17.2.2020 to the petitioner. Pursuant to the letter dated 17.2.2020, petitioner submitted her joining on 18.2.2020 and presently she is working on the said post. Now impugned D.O. letter dated 27.8.2020 has been issued by Additional Chief Secretary of the Governor of the State to District Magistrate/Director Rampur Raja Library, Rampur to cancel the appointment of the petitioner as the post was earlier abolished vide letter dated 13.2.2018. Following the direction of the Additional Chief Secretary, the District

¶7

Magistrate/Director, Rampur Raza Library Board, Rampur has also issued a letter dated 31.8.2020 to Library and Information Officer, Rampur Raja Library, Rampur to send the proposal for cancellation of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Technical Restorer. He further submitted that petitioner is working on the said post, but she has not been paid salary till date.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel has produced instruction and submitted that the post on which the petitioner is appointed, has been abolished and impugned orders dated 27.8.2020 and 31.8.2020 have rightly been passed, but he could not dispute this fact that earlier advertisement was issued and petitioner was appointed adopting due procedure of law.

¶9

I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner based upon pleadings made in the writ petition could not be disputed by learned Standing Counsel. Undisputedly petitioner was appointed after issuance of advertisement of post and also following the proper procedure as provided under law. Once the appointment of the petitioner is made by following due procedure of law and petitioner also submitted her joining, she cannot be terminated from her service without adopting due procedure of law as well as providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶10

Therefore, under such facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents not to terminate the service of the petitioner without adopting procedure of law and without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. She shall also be paid salary on month to month basis alongwith arrears of salary.

¶11

It is made clear that it is always open for the respondents to pass order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the present matter.

¶12

Order Date :- 14.12.2020 Rmk.

Nida Farheen v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nida Farheen v. Union of India and 3 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 Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hemant Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajab Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Surendra Nath Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lata Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others