Arti Singh Vs State of U.P Thru.Prin. Secy. Medical Health Family Welfare Civil Secrt. Lko. and 5 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 6308 of 2024

Arti Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P Thru.Prin. Secy. Medical Health Family Welfare Civil Secrt. Lko. And 5 Others

¶7

Family Welfare Civil Secrt. Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditya Tiwari, Deepranjan Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Puneet Chandra

¶8

Court No. - 7

¶9

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶10

Heard Mr.Aditya Tiwari, learned Counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party Nos.1, 3 & 6 and Mr. Mohit Chandra, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr.Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2.

¶11

Petition has been filed challenging Order of Termination dated 26.08.2023 passed in Minutes of Meeting of District Health Committee/Society in the meeting dated 26.08.2023 at agenda No.15.

¶12

It has been submitted that petitioner was initially appointed as ASHA (Accredited Social Health Activist) in 2005 and has continuously worked as such to the utmost satisfaction of opposite parties but subsequently by means of impugned order/resolution of Minutes of Meeting dated 26.08.2023 her services have been terminated without providing any opportunity of hearing and without even recording any finding with regard to any laxity committed by the petitioner in discharge of her duties. It is therefore submitted that in case petitioner was being terminated from service on the ground which was stigmatic in nature, an opportunity of hearing was required to be provided to her.

¶13

Learned Counsel for opposite parties have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that

¶14

WRIA No. 6308 of 2024

¶15

2

¶16

the petitioner does not come within the definition of a 'government employee' and therefore, there is no occasion for any opportunity of hearing granted or any inquiry to be conducted. It is further submitted that earlier petitioner had also been warned orally and in writing to make improvement in work but without any affect. It is submitted that the order impugned has been passed in view of the fact that petitioner was not performing her duties as ASHA which was derailing the implementation of government policies.

¶17

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly agenda item No. 15 of the Minutes of Meeting dated 26.08.2023, it is evident that petitioner's services have been terminated on account of allegations of non-cooperative attitude with regard to performance of her duties. A bare perusal of the aforesaid agenda item in the case that absolutely no finding has been recorded by the committee with regard to such allegation being levelled against the petitioner and her services have been terminated indicating that the Committee had been informed about petitioner's laxity in the conduct of her duties.

¶18

In the considered opinion of this Court, even if the petitioner does not come within definition of a 'government employee' and a fullfledged inquiry was not required to be conducted but a finding was required to be recorded by the committee if allegations were levelled against her. It is also opinion of this Court that in case the Termination Order was required to be founded on stigmatic grounds, though not fullfledged, but atleast an opportunity of hearing was required to be provided establishing allegations prior to termination of her services.

¶19

In the present case, it is evident that there is absolutely no finding recorded establishing her allegations levelled against the petitioner and the Termination Order has been passed only on the basis of hearsay.

¶20

In view of discussion made here-in-above, the impugned Termination Order dated 26.08.2023 as recorded at agenda item No.15 of the meeting of the District Health Committee/Society dated

¶21

WRIA No. 6308 of 2024

¶22

3

¶23

26.08.2023 is hereby quashed by issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari granting opportunity of hearing to opposite parties to pass orders afresh, but only after affording opportunity to the petitioner with regard to allegations levelled against her. Final orders with regard to same shall be passed by the authority concerned expeditiously within a period of two months form the date a certified copy of this order is served upon him. For the said purpose, petitioner shall be re-instated in service in case no-one else has been appointed in place of petitioner. The aspect of arrears of salary shall also be considered by the authority concerned alongwith final orders passed.

¶24

Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed . Parties to bear their own costs.

¶25

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶26

December 5, 2025

¶27

lakshman

¶28

Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arti Singh v. State of U.P Thru.Prin. Secy. Medical Health Family Welfare Civil Secrt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arti Singh v. State of U.P Thru.Prin. Secy. Medical Health Family Welfare Civil Secrt. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Utpal Kumar De Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Irrigation Water Resources Deptt. Lko and Another

Dev Narayan Dubey and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Irrigation Lko. and 4 Others

Hanumant Prasad Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Lko. and 3 Others

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl.Chief Secy. Irrigation Water Resource Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Hari Sagar Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Himanshu Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another