Dismissed

Sanjai Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health Services U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2024/8453/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging the simpliciter termination of a contractual employment. The court held that an internal correspondence cited for financial irregularity did not form the basis of the termination order and thus quashed the order. The order dismissed the petitioner's plea due to lack of occasion for interference.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed at the admission stage itself with directions to parties to bear their own costs.

Sanjai Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8453 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Sanjai Kumar Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Medical And Health Services U.P. Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh,Sridhar Awasthi

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 & 4, Mr. Sridhar Awasthi, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 & 3 and Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 5 to 7.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 03.08.2024 and 24.08.2024 as well as advertisement dated 23.08.2024 with regard to the post of Counsellor on contract basis with the college concerned whereby petitioner's contractual appointment has been terminated.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner has adverted to the impugned termination order dated 21.08.2024 to submit that the same although worded innocuously, states that an inquiry was held with regard to petitioner and is based on the earlier impugned order dated 03.08.2024 which clearly states that petitioner's services are being dispensed with due to financial irregularity. It is therefore submitted that a conjoint reading of the letter dated 03.08.2024 and 21.08.2024 clearly indicates that petitioner's termination from service is stigmatic in nature and since it has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner, is vitiated and liable to be quashed.

¶9

Learned counsel for opposite parties no. 5 to 7 has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that petitioner's termination order in fact is dated 21.08.2024 whereby petitioner has been discharged from service simpliciter without casting any aspersion upon him. It is further submitted that letter dated 03.08.2024 in fact is only an internal correspondence and cannot be termed to be a termination order and therefore any language used in the aforesaid letter is merely as an internal correspondence and cannot be relied upon to state that petitioner has been terminated from service on stigmatic grounds.

¶10

Learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 and 3 has adverted to the conditions of contract of petitioner to submit that such contractual services can be terminated by one month notice as has been done in the present case and particularly since the termination order has been passed simpliciter.

¶11

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for opposite parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that petitioner's services on contract basis were required to be continued till 30.09.2024. The services have thereafter been terminated by means of order dated 21.08.2024 which exfacie is simpliciter in nature. The main thrust of argument of learned counsel for petitioner is on letter dated 03.08.2024 which states that petitioner's services are no longer required in view of financial irregularity.

¶12

It is quite evident that the letter dated 03.08.2024 is merely an internal correspondence between the opposite parties and cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed to be a termination letter, particular since it does not form the basis of order dated 21.08.2024.

¶13

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it being apparent that the impugned termination letter dated 21.08.2024 is simpliciter in nature and with petitioner not taking any plea with regard to lifting of veil, this Court does not find any occasion to interfere with the order impugned.

¶14

Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶15

Order Date :- 27.9.2024 Satish

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanjai Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health Services U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjai Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health Services U.P. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Shail Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Kunwar Pal Singh Vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Its Managing Director and 3 Others

Ram Surat Singh Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication and 2 Others

Ram Newal Kannaujia vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Panchayti Raj Lko and 3 Others

Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Communication, New Delhi and 2 Others

Vartika Shukla and Another vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Women and Child Development New Delhi and 5 Others