Deonath Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Gramya Vikas Vibhag, Lko. and 5 Others

1. Heard Sri Shyam Bahadur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Patel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6.

¶12

2. Sri Pankaj Patel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, states that he is also appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.

¶13

3. Under challenge is the order dated 29.07.2024, a copy of which is annexure-2 to the petition, whereby the petitioner has been informed that his services have already been dispensed with in pursuance to the meeting of the Administrative Committee of the Gram Panchayat held on 25.06.2024. Also under challenge is the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 25.06.2024.

¶14

4. Further prayer is for mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Gram Rojgar Sewak in Village Panchayat Tajjuddinpur, Post Maugarvi, Development Block and Tehsil Maharajganj, District Raebareli.

¶15

5. The case set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2012 as a Gram Rojgar Sewak and has been continuing ever since in the same capacity. Various notices had been issued to the petitioner pertaining to his working, which had all been replied to vide his replies dated 08.04.2024 and 09.04.2024, copies of which are annexure-4 to the petition (Pages 53 and 56 of the petition). The petitioner has not been permitted to work since June 2024. Upon the petitioner asking for the reasons for the same, the impugned communication dated 29.07.2024 was issued, whereby the petitioner was informed that his services have been dispensed with in pursuance of the resolution of the Administrative Committee of the Gram Panchayat dated 25.06.2024.

¶16

6. Hence this petition.

¶17

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the services of the Gram Rojgar Sewak are governed by the Government Order dated 23.11.2007, a copy of which is annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated

¶18

02.12.2024. Placing reliance on clause-7(च) of the said Government Order, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said clause categorically provides that the services of a Gram Rojgar Sewak can

¶19

be dispensed with in case they are not found to be satisfactory, which action can be taken after issuing the show cause notice and, in case a reply has been submitted, after considering the said reply, which decision would be taken by the Members of the Gram Panchayat with the two-thirds majority. Further, either one month's notice or one month's honorarium would be given at the time of dispensing with the services of the Sewak, which, as per the specific averments made in paragraph-4 of the said supplementary affidavit, has not been given, which renders the impugned order of termination patently bad in the eyes of law.

¶20

8. The other argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a perusal of the Resolution of the Gram Sabha dated 25.06.2024 would indicate that there is no consideration of the reply which has been submitted by the petitioner; rather, the Gram Sabha has indicated that his reply has been considered without indicating as to how the Gram Sabha has considered the reply of the petitioner and why the same has not found to be tenable. It is contended that the impugned Resolution reflects patent non-application of mind on the reply which has been submitted by the petitioner.

¶21

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned order by contending that as the services of the petitioner were not satisfactory, consequently, no error has been occasioned in dispensing with the services of the petitioner.

¶22

10. Sri Pankaj Patel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, informs, on the basis of telephonic instructions given by the concerned Block Development Officer, that neither any notice pay nor a notice of one month was given to the petitioner.

¶23

11. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, it emerges that the services of the petitioner, Gram Rojgar Sewak, have been dispensed with in pursuance of the Resolution of the Gram Sabha dated 25.06.2024, and information in this regard has been given by means of the communication impugned dated 29.07.2024.

¶24

12. The service conditions of a Gram Rojgar Sewak are governed by the Government Order dated 23.11.2007, which categorically provides in clause-7(च) that the services a Gram Rojgar Sewak can be dispensed with in case they are not found to be satisfactory, which action can be taken after issuing the show cause notice and, in case a reply has been submitted, after considering the said reply, which decision would be taken by the Members of the Gram Panchayat with the two-thirds majority. Further, either one month's notice or one month's honorarium would be given at the time of dispensing with the services

¶25

13. However, a perusal of the Resolution of the Gram Sabha, a copy of which has been filed as annexure-2 to the petition, would indicate that the members of the Gram Sabha have only indicated that a satisfactory

¶26

reply has not been submitted by the petitioner.

¶27

14. The petitioner had already submitted two replies to the show cause notice that was issued to him, i.e., on 08.04.2024 and 09.04.2024, which indicated in detail his explanation, but the same has not been considered by the Gram Sabha; rather, as already indicated above, it has been indicated to be not satisfactory without stating the reasons as to why the said explanation has not been found satisfactory.

¶28

15. The other aspect of the matter is that despite clause-7(च) of the Government Order dated 23.11.2007 specifically providing for either notice pay or one month's notice prior to dispensing with the service of the Gram Rojgar Sewak, admittedly the same has not been given.

¶29

16. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the termination of the petitioner from the post of Gram Rojgar Sewak is patently bad in the eyes of law and also violative of the Government Order dated 23.11.2007.

¶30

17. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed . The communication dated 29.07.2024, a copy of which is annexure-2 to the petition, is quashed. The termination of the petitioner in pursuance of the Resolution dated 25.06.2024 is also set aside.

¶31

18. A writ of mandamus is issued, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Gram Rojgar Sewak and also to pay him honorarium for

¶32

the period during which the same has not been paid.

¶33

19. Consequences to follow.

¶34

20. However, it is provided that in case the petitioner indulges in any misconduct, it would be open for the respondents to proceed in accordance with law.

¶35

[Abdul Moin, J.]

¶36

Order Date :- 31.7.2025 cks/-

¶37

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Deonath v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Gramya Vikas Vibhag, Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deonath v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Gramya Vikas Vibhag, Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lallu Ram Vs F.C.I.Bara Khamba Lane and 5 Ors.

Dipendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irregtion and Water Resources Deptt. Lko. and Another

Lalchand Alias Lalchand Ram and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Lko . and 3 Others

Aakib Khan and Ors. Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Nagar Vikas and Ors.

Dr. Amit Kumar Mishra vs Union of India, Deptt. of Health Thru. Secy. (Health) New Delhi and 7 Others

Nand Kishore and Ors. Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Nagar Vikas and Ors.