The High Court of Allahabad allowed a writ petition filed against the arbitrary termination of the petitioner, who had been appointed as a Junior Clerk under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, following his mother’s death in 2008. After serving for over a decade and being promoted to Senior Clerk, his services were abruptly terminated in August 2025 on the ground that his father was a government employee at the time of the initial application. The Court held that since there was no concealment or misrepresentation by the petitioner—who was a minor at the time of application—and the authorities had conducted proper verifications before appointing and subsequently promoting him, the State could not wake up years later to terminate service due to its own administrative oversights.
- Background and Appointment: The petitioner’s mother, a government employee, passed away in November 2008 when the petitioner was a minor. Upon attaining majority, he applied for a compassionate appointment in November 2011, explicitly disclosing that his father was a retired government servant. Following verification by the Block Education Officer, he was appointed as a Junior Clerk on September 27, 2013, and later promoted to Senior Clerk on December 13, 2019.
- Termination Order: On August 11, 2025, the District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh, terminated the petitioner’s services following a complaint filed by a third party alleging that his employment was illegal because his father was employed at the time of his mother’s death. Multiple show-cause notices were issued and replied to, but no regular departmental inquiry or charge-sheet was ever issued.
- Petitioner’s Contentions: The petitioner argued that the termination was completely arbitrary, violated principles of natural justice, and lacked any statutory inquiry. He emphasized that no facts were concealed, and relied on several binding precedents protecting employees from termination after substantial time lapses.
- Court’s Observations and Reasoning:
- No Suppression of Facts: The Court observed that the petitioner had not concealed his family’s employment background. At the time of application, he was barely 18 and a half years old and could not be expected to navigate complex technical disclosure rules.
- Laches and State’s Own Lapse: Citing the Supreme Court ruling in Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, the Court noted that the State cannot take advantage of its own mistakes or wake up after a long passage of time (over a decade) to terminate an employee who was not guilty of fraud or manipulation.
- Precedents Relied Upon: The Court drew strong parallels to similar coordinate bench rulings including Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P., Sugandha Upadhyay v. State of U.P., and Vishwaroop v. State of U.P., which had all been affirmed subsequently by the Supreme Court.
- Relief Granted: The impugned termination order dated August 11, 2025, was quashed. The respondents were directed to immediately reinstate the petitioner to the post of Senior Clerk with full back wages, continuity of service, and all consequential benefits within two months.
J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 82
Abhay Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 5 Others (D.O.J. 10.07.2026)
J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 82 click here to view full text of judgment
