Abhishek Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8642

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1697 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Abhishek Singh

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health And Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalit Kishore Tiwari,Uma Shankar Verma

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Puneet Chandra

¶7

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Lalit Kishore Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Puneet Chandra, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was initially appointed on 20.08.2016 on the post of State Coordinator Blood Storage State Blood Cell for a fixed salary of Rs. 50,000/- for a period of one year.

¶10

It has further been stated that he has continued to discharge his duties to the satisfaction of the superiors and accordingly his services were extended from time to time till by means of impugned order dated 16.08.2024 his services has been terminated on account of the fact that there was certain discrepancy in the demand raised and the quantity procured with regard to HIV ELISA Kits and Hepatitis ELISA Kits which were procured from one M/S Oscr Medicare Pvt. Ltd. For the said payment made to the firm, a 5 member committee was constituted in which the petitioner has been found guilty and consequently by means of impugned order his services have been terminated.

¶11

The main contention in assailing the order of termination is the same has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and levelling such serious allegations cannot be made without giving him any opportunity of hearing and hence submits that the order is clearly stigmatic and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. In support of his submissions, he has submitted that even if the petitioner has been appointed on the basis of contract still the State is under a mandate to act in a reasonable and fair manner which is provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and such a termination levelling serious allegations against the petitioner

¶12

without holding any inquiry where the petitioner has been associated or even giving any show cause notice would be violative of Article of 14 of Constitution of India and hence such an order deserves to be set aside.

¶13

Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for respondents on the other hand has opposed the writ petition on the basis of written instructions received from the General Manager, Human Resource and NRHM, Uttar Pradesh. It has been submitted that there was serious allegation against the petitioner with regard to procurement of the HIV ELISA Kits and Hepatitis ELISA Kits where discrepancy in the demand was discovered and it seems due to the said discrepancy, a large amount was paid to the agency from which it was procured for which allegation the petitioner has been held to be responsible. In the said instructions, this Court finds that only the gravity of the allegation against the petitioner has been dealt with but there is no mention of the fact that the petitioner was either given a show cause notice or he was associated with the 5 member inquiry committee.

¶14

Accordingly, it can safely be concluded from the material on record that the proceedings against the petitioner was ex-parte and no opportunity was given to him to defend his conduct which led to passing of the order of the termination. It is noticed that in matter of contractual appointment, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the recent case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 has observed as under:-

¶15

" 22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

¶16

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of

¶17

temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade longterm obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

¶18

Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.

¶19

Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.

¶20

Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.

¶21

Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.

¶22

Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.

¶23

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular"

¶24

appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

¶25

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

¶26

28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent:

¶27

i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;

¶28

ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits."

¶29

Accordingly, once it is clear that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing or associated in the inquiry nor even given show cause notice, the respondents have acted in an arbitrary manner and consequently the impugned order of

¶30

termination cannot be sustained. In case there were serious allegations against the petitioner, it was open for the respondents either to terminate the services of the petitioner by an order simplicitor or in case they wish to terminate on the basis of allegations then it was necessary to give him an opportunity of hearing and only after examining and considering his response, appropriate orders could have been passed including order of termination in case he was found guilty of the charged levelled against him.

¶31

Accordingly, considering the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (Supra), this Court finds that even in the case of contractual appointments, the State is under a mandate to act in a reasonable and fair manner. Accordingly, the order of termination dated 16.08.2024 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondents to proceed afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the petitioner.

¶32

Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the said proceedings.

¶33

Let the said exercise be concluded with expedition.

¶34

With the aforesaid observations / directions, the writ petition stands allowed .

¶35

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶36

Order Date :- 11.2.2025

¶37

Ravi/

¶38

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abhishek Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mulhe Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko and Another

Amit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas ANUBHAG-4 Lko. and Another

Dr. Gauri Shanker Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 4 Others

Sagar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Sartaj Mishra Pno. No. 932310055 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Ors.

Dharmeshwar Singh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare and 4 Others