Allowed¶5

Rafath Naaz Saiyyd v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2025WRIA/13289/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maternity leave rejection order (District Basic Education Officer, Amroha) quashed as arbitrary non-speaking order; matter remitted for fresh decision per Dr. Rachna Chaurasiya and Smt. Anupam Yadav precedents.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned order dated 27.08.2025 and remittal to the District Basic Education Officer, District-Amroha, for decision afresh on merits. ¶5

Rafath Naaz Saiyyd vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 13289 of 2025

Rafath Naaz Saiyyd

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ashish Pandey, Man Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Nagendra Kumar Pandey

¶7

Court No. - 52

¶8

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nagendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent-BSA and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶10

The writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 27.08.2025 passed by District Basic Education Officer, District-Amroha. It is further prayed to direct the respondent no.2 to grant the maternity leave of 180 days to the petitioner forthwith and to pay salary of the maternity leave period.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for maternity leave of the petitioner has been rejected by District Basic Education Officer, Amroha, vide order dated 27.08.2025, without disclosing any reason. Therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary, non speaking order and unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same may be quashed. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgements passed by this Court in the cases of Dr. Rachna Chaurasiya vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Neutral Citation:-2017:AHC:99779-DB and Smt. Anupam Yadav Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others, passed in Writ A No.9535 of 2022, on 21.10.2022.

¶12

Learned counsel for respondent-BSA, could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.08.2025 passed by respondent no.2 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent no.2, i.e. District Basic Education Officer, District- Amroha, for decision afresh, ignoring the delay if any, on

¶14

WRIA No. 13289 of 2025

¶15

¶16

merits, in accordance with the observations made in the aforesaid judgements Dr. Rachna Chaurasiya (supra) and Smt. Anupam Yadav (supra), by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks from today, if there is no legal impediment.

¶17

September 8, 2025 Jitendra/-

¶18

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rafath Naaz Saiyyd v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafath Naaz Saiyyd v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Poonam vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krishna Kant Sharma vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Manish Bajpai vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akash vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vale Khan vs State of U.P.

Rahul Singh vs State of U.P.