Allahabad High Court
Dinesh Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Gramya ... on 3 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:69661
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 29410 of 2021
Dinesh Pratap Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Gramya Vikas And Ors.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Virendra Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 18
HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
Under challenge is the order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the Divisional Commissioner(Labour Employment, Joint District Program Coordinator, District Amethi on the ground that the order is stigmatic and no opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to the petitioner.
The contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being qualified was appointed on the post of Additional Project Officer in Block Deeh on contractual basis, on 10.12.2010 and vide order dated 29.07.2011, the petitioner alongwith three other additional project officers, were transferred and posted in different blocks, whereas, the petitioner was transferred from Block Deeh to Block Sangrampur, District Amethi, wherein, he worked with the satisfaction of his superiors for a long period of eight years. She further submitted that on 09.11.2020, the petitioner fell ill and he went to Community Health Center for treatment and could not attend the office, whereas, due information of his illness was given to the respondent no. 7, on telephone. She submitted that since the Doctor had advised the petitioner to take rest for 10 days, therefore, he could not join the Office and he was under impression that he has informed the respondent no. 7. She further argued that on 10.11.2020, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the services were terminated with certain stigma, which is apparent from the order impugned itself.
She added that this is not denied by the opposite parties in the counter affidavit that no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner, prior passing the order dated 11.11.2020, and further the order is stigmatic. In support of her contention, she has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the cases of Paras Nath Pandey Vs. North Central Zone Cultural Centre, Allahabad reported in 2008 SCC Online ALL 1215 as well as in the case of Shive Charan Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2018 SC OnLine ALL 4218 and submits that the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered with the ratio of the judgments abovesaid.
Concluding her arguments, she submitted that the services of the petitioner have been terminated, which is against the settled proposition of law, therefore, the same is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid, but he has failed to contradict the contention of counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was afforded prior to pass the impugned order and he has also failed to substantiate that the impugned order is stigmatic.
Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it is apparent from the impugned order itself that the same is stigmatic. This is an admitted fact that the show cause notice has never been served to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing has been accorded. This Court is also aware of the settled proposition of law in the case of Paras Nath Pandey(Supra).
Consequently, the order dated 10.11.2020 is unsustainable and the same is hereby quashed.
The respondent no. 6/Deputy Commissioner(Shram Rozgar), Amethi/Joint District Programme Coordinator, District Amethi, is directed to pass a fresh order after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner, within further period of six weeks.
With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is hereby allowed.
Needless to say that if the respondent no. 6 reaches to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to be allowed to work, he shall pass the order in accordance with the same.
(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)
November 3, 2025
Mayank
