Disposed

Avanindra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Tourism Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2025WRIA/11027/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contractual employee challenged a stigmatic termination order; the court quashed it relying on precedent, observing that his same-day resignation stood accepted from its submission date.

What did the court decide?

Termination order dated 11.11.2024 quashed; resignation dated 11.11.2024 accepted effective its submission date.

What the court decided

Avanindra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11376

¶2

Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11027 of 2024 Petitioner :- Avanindra Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Tourism Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuj Kudesia,Vikas Kumar Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anurag Srivastava

¶3

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3.

¶5

The facts of the case revolve in a very narrow compass.

¶6

The services of the petitioner - a contractual employee have been terminated by means of stigmatic order dated 11.11.2024. Such stigmatic order would not stand legal scrutiny keeping in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swati Priyadarshini vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139.

¶7

Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 & 3 states that even prior to the order dated 11.11.2024 having been passed by the respondents, the petitioner had submitted his resignation on 11.11.2024, a copy of which is annexure SCA-1 to the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3.

¶8

Shri Srivastava states that the respondents No.2 & 3 would be accepting the resignation of the petitioner w.e.f. the date the same was submitted inasmuch as, the respondents did not act upon the said resignation considering that his services already stood terminated.

¶9

Considering the aforesaid, the order impugned dated 11.11.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, terminating the contractual services of the petitioner is quashed with a further observation that the resignation of the petitioner dated 11.11.2024 stands accepted w.e.f. the date of submission of the resignation.

¶10

Order Date :- 21.2.2025 S. Shivhare

¶11

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Avanindra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Tourism Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Avanindra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Tourism Deptt. Lko. and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Om Prakash Trivedi and 2 Others Vs Union of India Thru. Secr. Mini. of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Arun Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Edu. Secondary Lko and 4 Others

Jai Prakash Singh and Another Vs U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Communication and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar Verma Vs State U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 6 Others

Santosh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Narayan Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. and 2 Others