Allowed

Prem Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Labour Deptt. Lko and Ors.

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2024WRIA/29980/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) quashed an order terminating the petitioner's services. The court held that since the petitioner had been regularized after due procedure and the respondents failed to conduct an enquiry or provide a hearing, the termination was unsustainable as a violation of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned termination order dated 04.10.2019 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with all consequential benefits.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:22350

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29980 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- Prem Kumar Singh

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Labour Deptt. Lko And Ors.

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Srivastava,Shailendra Kumar Dubey

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶8

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶10

The petitioner has been engaged as Class IV vide order dated 08.07.1987 of the Deputy Director-cum-Senior Medical Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow. The petitioner continuously discharged his duties as class IV employee and later on promoted as Trained Dresser on 01.08.1998. The petitioner from the date of his promotion is working on class III post.

¶11

The respondent no.2 all of sudden passed an order dated 04.10.2019 terminating the services of the petitioner in compliance of the letter dated 17.02.2016 issued by the Secretary, UP Government, Lucknow on the ground that initial appointment of the petitioner as class III employee by order dated 08.07.1987 was not in accordance with law and the appointing authority was not competent to appoint the petitioner, as he had committed several irregularities in appointing the petitioner.

¶12

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that the petitioner was engaged on 08.07.1987. It is further averred that Dr. A.P. Singh, the then Deputy Director-cum-Senior Medical Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Sarojani Nagar, Lucknow committed serious irregularities in appointing the petitioner and other persons like the petitioner, and as initial engagement of the petitioner was illegal, therefore, the petitioner could not continue in service on the

¶13

basis of illegal appointment.

¶14

Challenging the aforesaid termination order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been engaged on 08.07.1987 as class III employee and he has been promoted by order dated 01.08.1998. It is submitted that once, the petitioner has become permanent employee, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be cancelled without following due procedure of law. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is submitted that no enquiry as contemplated under UP Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal), Rules, 1999 was conducted by the respondents and as such, the impugned order is not sustainable in law.

¶15

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that as initial engagement of the petitioner was illegal and he has been engaged without following due procedure of law, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim continuance on the said post.

¶16

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

¶17

The petitioner has been engaged as class III employee by appointment letter dated 08.07.1987 and he has been promoted by order dated 01.08.1998. The petitioner since then i.e. from the date of his initial engagement is working as class III employee. However, the services of the petitioner has been terminated by order dated 04.10.2019.

¶18

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has become permanent employee and therefore, the services of the petitioner cannot be dispensed without following due procedure of law. In the instant case, it is evident from the impugned order that neither any enquiry was conducted by the respondents nor any notice and opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Further, this Court may note that only vague averments in

¶19

paras 6, 7 & 9 of the counter affidavit have been made that Dr. A.P. Singh who appointed the petitioner committed irregularities in making the appointment, but there is no averment in said paragraph that as to what was the irregularity committed by Dr. A.P. Singh in appointing the petitioner.

¶20

It is pertinent to note that there is no averment in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has played fraud in obtaining his appointment. The petitioner has been appointed and subsequently on the basis of his performance and conduct, his services has been regularized. There is no whisper in the impugned order that the regularization of the petitioner has been obtained by fraud.

¶21

This Court is conscious of the fact that where the termination order is passed without conducting any enquiry and in violation of principles of natural justice, the Court after quashing the termination order may leave it open to the authorities to proceed afresh. This Court does not find that in the instant case such a liberty should be given to the respondents for the reasons stated below:

¶22

(i). The respondents are not disputing the fact that the petitioner has been regularized after following due procedure of law. It is pertinent to note that there is no pleading in the counter affidavit that any fraud or misrepresentation has been played by the petitioner in obtaining the initial engagement and the counter affidavit is also cryptic and does not state as to what irregularities was committed by Dr. A.P. Singh in appointing the petitioner.

¶23

(ii). Further, at the time of regularization of the petitioner the respondents being satisfied with the work and performance of the petitioner and after scrutinizing the entire records of the petitioner, regularized him.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid finding, this Court finds that the reasons stated in the impugned order that as the initial engagement of the petitioner was not in accordance with law, therefore, he is not entitled to continue in service is misconceived and not sustainable in

¶25

law.

¶26

In such view of the fact, this Court is of the view that the order impugned is not sustainable in law and it is set aside.

¶27

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

¶28

Order Date :- 13.3.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prem Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Labour Deptt. Lko and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Labour Deptt. Lko and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Kumar and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Information and Public Relat

Srikant Prasad Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and Ors.

Ranjit Singh Yadav Alias Ranjit Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Horticulture, U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others

Sanjay Srivastava Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Labour Deptt. Lko and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Commercial Tax Lko.and Ors.

Bachcha Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and 2 Others