Mahmood Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 4 Others

Court No. - 6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2590 of 2025

Petitioner :- Mahmood Ahmad

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health And Family Welfare Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Pandey,Suyash Kumar Pandey

¶5

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

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 5 and Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 4.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was selected and appointed vide letter dated 24.09.2016 on the post of District Early Intervention Centre (DEIC) Manager on contract basis at Ambedkar Nagar. He was appointed on a fixed honorarium of Rs. 33,000/- per month and as per the contract of appointment,his services were till 31.03.2017 and his contract could further be renewed.

¶9

It has been submitted that petitioner continued in service and his contract was renewed from time to time till he was terminated by means of order dated 19.05.2023. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ A No. 4902 of 2023 which was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 12.07.2023 and it was found that the procedure followed by the respondents was illegal and arbitrary and accordingly the said order was set aside and liberty was granted to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law in light of the guidelines and terms of the order of engagement of the petitioner.

¶10

It has been submitted that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 12.07.2023, the impugned order dated 06/5.01.2024 has been passed stating that a decision has been taken by the district magistrate / President District Health Society to terminate the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 19.05.2023.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that as per the judgment of this Court dated 12.07.2023 the termination order had to be passed in light of the terms of engagement and according to the terms of engagement which has been specified in Clause - 6(c) which states that "the District Health Society

¶12

will have the right to terminate your services by giving onemonth notice or an amount equivalent to one-month salary in lieu of notice." It has been submitted that firstly the order of termination could not have been passed from back dates i.e. 19.05.2023 and secondly there is no mention of giving any notice of termination and salary in lieu of notice and consequently the order is contrary to the terms of the engagement.

¶13

He has further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 where Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that even a contract employee has to be dealt by the State with fairness and reasonableness. It has been stated that similarly verdict was rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) v. State of U.P. , (1991) 1 SCC 21, relevant portion is quoted hereinunder:-

¶14

" 48. In our view, bringing the State activity in contractual matters also within the purview of judicial review is inevitable and is a logical corollary to the stage already reached in the decisions of this Court so far. Having fortunately reached this point, we should not now turn back or take a turn in a different direction or merely stop there. In our opinion, two recent decisions in Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons [(1990) 3 SCC 752 : JT (1990) 1 SC 363] and Mahabir Auto Stores [(1984) 3 All ER 935] also lead in the same direction without saying so in clear terms. This appears to be also the trend of the recent English decisions. It is in consonance with our commitment to openness which implies scrutiny of every State action to provide an effective check against arbitrariness and abuse of power. We would much rather be wrong in saying so rather than be wrong in not saying so. Non-arbitrariness, being a necessary concomitant of the rule of law, it is imperative that all actions of every public functionary, in whatever sphere, must be guided by reason and not humour, whim, caprice or personal predilections of the persons entrusted with the task on behalf of the State and exercise of all power must be for public good instead of being an abuse of the power."

¶15

After hearing learned counsel for rival parties, it is noticed that the impugned order of termination is clearly prima facie contrary to the terms of engagement dated 24.09.2016 accordingly the matter requires consideration.

¶16

Let counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within three weeks.

¶17

Till the next date of listing, operation and implementation of

¶18

impugned order dated 06/5.01.2024 shall shall remain stayed.

¶19

The petitioner would be entitled to work and shall be paid salary till the next date of listing.

¶20

List this case on 21.04.2025.

¶21

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Ravi/

¶23

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

Mahmood Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahmood Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 4 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Krishna Kumar Mishra Vs Court of Additional Court Faizabad Now Ayodhya and Another

Santosh Singh @ Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Prakash Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept Lko.

Rizwan Quraishi vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Govt. Lko.

Vineeta Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Labour Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others