Kalp Narayan Shukla v. U.P. State Road Transport Nigam and 4 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2026WRIA/624/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractual employee termination; U.P. State Road Transport Nigam; fresh enquiry order dated 26.12.2025 into allegations dated 26.6.2012; earlier enquiry by Hemant Mishra, Enquiry Officer; allegations not substantiated; judgment dated 9.9.2025 giving employer two options (fresh inquiry after hearing or fresh contract); liberty to seek modification of earlier judgment; natural justice; stigmatic termination; Writ-A No. 624 of 2026; Allahabad High Court; Vikram D. Chauhan, J.; adjourned to 26.2.2026 in top ten cases.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to seek modification of the earlier judgment dated 9.9.2025; matter adjourned and directed to be listed on 26.2.2026 in top ten cases. ¶¶27

Kalp Narayan Shukla vs U.P. State Road Transport Nigam and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioner to seek modification of the earlier judgment dated 9.9.2025; matter adjourned and directed to be listed on 26.2.2026 in top ten cases.

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner may be granted liberty to seek modification of the judgment dated 9.9.2025 (which offered the employer the option of a fresh enquiry) in view of the employer's order dated 26.12.2025 directing a fresh enquiry despite the earlier enquiry report recording that the allegations were not substantiated.

¶¶25

Court's answer

The petitioner is granted liberty to seek modification of the earlier judgment dated 9.9.2025 in respect of the fresh enquiry ordered by the employer, and the matter is adjourned with that liberty.

¶¶27

Key takeaways

Observation that, the employer having already been given the option by the judgment dated 9.9.2025 to conduct the enquiry afresh, it has no other option (but to conduct the enquiry afresh); the substantive objection to the fresh enquiry is left open to be raised in a modification application.obiter¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikram D. Chauhan, J.), Writ-A No. 624 of 2026, Kalp Narayan Shukla v. U.P. State Road Transport Nigam & 4 Others (decided January 28, 2026): The petitioner, a former contractual employee of the U.P. State Road Transport Nigam whose termination had been set aside by the Court's judgment dated 9.9.2025 in a bunch of writ petitions (which gave the employer two options — to conduct inquiry afresh after giving opportunity of hearing, or to permit execution of a fresh contract), objected to the employer's order dated 26.12.2025 directing a fresh enquiry into allegations dated 26.6.2012, pointing out that an earlier enquiry by Hemant Mishra, Enquiry Officer (report at page 151 of the paper book) had found the allegations not substantiated. Counsel for the respondents relied on paragraph 14 of the judgment dated 9.9.2025. The petitioner sought liberty to seek modification of the earlier judgment; counsel for the respondents had no objection. The Court observed that the employer, having been given the option of conducting the enquiry afresh, had no other option, granted the petitioner liberty to seek modification of the judgment dated 9.9.2025, and adjourned the matter to 26.2.2026 (top ten cases).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 624 of 2026

Kalp Narayan Shukla

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

U.P. State Road Transport Nigam And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Udai Chandani
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Sheo Ram Singh

¶9

Court No. - 34

¶10

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was working as a contractual employee and his services were dispensed with and the same was subject matter of challenge before this Court in Writ-A No. 7691 of 2023 which was disposed of in terms of the judgment of this Court passed in leading writ petition in the bunch on 9.9.2025. The operative portion is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶12

" 14. The Court also takes note of rival submissions on the issue of arbitration clause. Though at this stage Court is of the opinion that petitioners have challenged the order of termination directly before this Court but otherwise also respondents have not shows any instances where arbitration clause was actually acted upon. Therefore, at this stage to consider the rival submissions to the extent that whether arbitration clause is valid or not, would not be appropriate and petitioners will have a liberty to challenge the same as and when situation so warrants as well as if the case was not referred or referred to arbitration it would make no difference since the Court is of the opinion that in such cases where impugned orders being stigmatic and passed without giving any opportunity whatsoever, as required by Circular dated 27.04.2023, are liable to be set aside. However, the respondents will have two options, i.e., either to conduct inquiry afresh after giving opportunity of hearing or to permit the petitioners to execute fresh contract and at that stage it will be incumbent on respondents to clarify all conditions mentioned in contract and it is upto the petitioners to accept it or not or to take any legal remedy, as available in accordance with law.

¶13

WRIA No. 624 of 2026

¶14

¶15

15. Accordingly, impugned orders in Writ-A Nos. 14886 of 2022; 20976 of 2023; 10044 of 2023; 10404 of 2023; 10869 of 2023; 11049 of 2023; 13182 of 2023; 1044 of 2020; 13516 of 2023; 1229 of 2023; 2823 of 2023; 4191 of 2023; and, 8586 of 2023, are set aside and these writ petitions are disposed of with above referred observations and directions.

¶16

16. At this stage, Court also takes note that allegations of carrying passengers without ticket is a very serious allegation and it could invite punishment of termination and in case of contract termination of contract.

¶17

17. Now the Court deals with second set of petitioners, being contractual appointees, have suffered order of termination of contract after giving opportunity of hearing or despite opportunity they failed to appear, i.e., principle of natural justice was substantially followed.

¶18

18. So far as second set of writ petitions, i.e., Writ-A Nos. 7691 of 2023; 10405 of 2023; 7602 of 2023; 9625 of 2023; 10014 of 2023; 7242 of 2023; 7237 of 2023; and, 5718 of 2023 are concerned, after going through the respective records, this Court is of the opinion that in some of the cases contractual appointees / petitioners have not appeared despite opportunity and even in one case after remand the inquiry was fresh conducted and opportunity was also granted, still considering that there is no reason that benefit as granted to writ petitioners of first set be not granted to these petitioners also.

¶19

19. Accordingly, impugned orders in Writ-A Nos. 7691 of 2023; 10405 of 2023; 7602 of 2023; 9625 of 2023; 10014 of 2023; 7242 of 2023; 7237 of 2023; and, 5718 of 2023, are also set aside and these writ petitions are also disposed of with observations and directions mentioned in para 14 of this judgment. "

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by judgment dated 9.9.2025 two options were given to the employer either to conduct an enquiry afresh after giving opportunity of hearing or to permit the petitioner to execute fresh contract. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that employer has passed an order on 26.12.2025 for fresh enquiry in respect of the allegations dated 26.6.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in respect of the aforesaid incident also

¶21

WRIA No. 624 of 2026

¶22

¶23

an enquiry was conducted by Hemant Mishra, Enquiry Officer. The enquiry report is at page no. 151 of the paper book and the allegations were not substantiated by the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that ignoring the aforesaid enquiry report fresh enquiry proceedings have been initiated. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon paragraph no. 14 of the judgment dated 9.9.2025 to submit that fresh enquiry has been ordered.

¶24

In view of the direction issued in paragraph no. 14 of the judgment dated 9.9.2025 a perusal of the order would go to show that employer was given two options either to conduct an enquiry afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or permit the petitioner to execute fresh contract. Once this Court by judgment dated 9.9.2025 has already given option to the employer to conduct enquiry afresh then the employer has no other option to conduct an enquiry afresh.

¶25

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be granted liberty to seek modification of the earlier judgment dated 9.9.2025 in this respect.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid, the matter is adjourned with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner.

¶28

List this case on 26.2.2026 in top ten cases.

¶29

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶30

January 28, 2026 VMA

¶31

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kalp Narayan Shukla v. U.P. State Road Transport Nigam and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalp Narayan Shukla v. U.P. State Road Transport Nigam 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abhinav Kesarwani vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gyan Alias Gyanendra Bharthi and 10 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar Agarwal vs Km. Munni

Jagdish Pal and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sajan Kumar vs Registrar General High Court, Allahabad and Another