# Hanumat Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 267 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-03-31 - **Case number:** Writ A No. 2632 of 2008 - **Bench:** Irshad Ali - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hanumat-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54335 - **Pages:** 4 ## Text 3 All. Hanumat Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 267 So far as petitioner nos.2 to 5 are concerned, experience of their working as Primary Teachers, therefore, for the reasons assigned in the order passed in above referred Writ Petition No.3112 of 2026, no interference is required. Judgments relied upon by learned counsel for different petitioners are distinguishable on facts. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (t) Writ No.2686 of 2026 In this case petitioner has claimed that 3 candidates were wrongly considered to be qualified having 7 years experience in any Government Office. However, Court finds that claim of the petitioners is liable to be rejected since presently Nayan Kumar, is working as Head Assistant in the Directorate of Education (Secondary) U.P. Prayagraj, undisputedly a Government Office and Sri Surendra Kumar Singh is working as Personal Assistant in Directorate of Education (Secondary) U.P. Prayagraj, also a Government Office, therefore, any objection to their inclusion for interview is baseless. So far as details of 3rd person is concerned, according to learned counsel for the respondents, details are not matched in their data, therefore, objections are liable to be rejected. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. ---------- (2026) 3 ILRA 267 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 31.03.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. Writ A No. 2632 of 2008 Hanumat Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue for Consideration (1) Validity of termination order passed without initiating the disciplinary proceedings. Headnotes (A) Service law - Termination - Post of Peon - Allegation of absent from duty for two days - No disciplinary proceeding was initiated - Averment in writ petition that no notice and opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, has not been denied in the counter affidavit - Effect - Alternative remedy of Appeal, when not barred issuance of writ Held : The order impugned dated 16.2.2008 is being violative of principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. The impugned order has not been challenged in appeal in view of the fact that the order has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing. [Para 9] (E-1) Case Law Cited Whirlpool Corpn. vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1: 1998 SCC OnLine SC 663 - referred to. List of Acts Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Regulation 31, 103 to 109 of the Regulations framed under Chapter III. 268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES List of Keywords Termination, Absent from duty, Show cause notice, Disciplinary proceeding, Opportunity of hearing, Principle of natural justice, Alternative remedy. Case Arising From Impugned order 16.02.2008 passed by the respondent no. 5 terminating the service of petitioner. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner : S. P. Singh, Pankaj Shukla Advs. for the Respondents : S. G. Singh, Pramod Kumar Singh, I. P. Singh, M. B. Singh (Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.G. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State and Shri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Committee of Management. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned order of termination dated 16.2.2008 as contained in Annexure no.1 to the writ petition passed by the opposite party no.5, with further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue as usual on the post of Peon and to pay him salary and allowances regularly with all consequently benefits. 3. Factual matrix of the case is that father of the petitioner was working in Kanha Shiksha Niketan Inter College, Kahina Bazar, District Raebareli as Duftary who died in harness on 20.4.2003. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds and he was granted appointment under Regulation 103 to 109 of the Regulations framed under Chapter III of the Intermediate Education Act on 2.8.2003. In pursuance to the appointment order, the Principal of the Institution issued joining letter on 7.8.2003 and in pursuance thereto, the petitioner joined in the Institution and started discharging duties on Class IV post in the Institution in question. The petitioner absented from duties for two days on 24.4.2006 and 25.4.2006 and thereafter, he came to join in the Institution and the Principal of the Institution issued show cause notice in regard to absence from duty on 27.4.2006. The petitioner submitted reply on 22.5.2006. Notice was again issued to the petitioner by the Principal of the College on 30.6.2006 and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted detailed reply in regard to absence from duty for two days on 1.7.2006. The Principal of the Institution without initiating disciplinary proceedings in the matter against the petitioner has passed the order of termination dated 16.2.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition wherein an interim order was granted on 22.5.2008 which is being quoted below: "Heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No.664 (S/S) of 2008 for payment of salary. Now, by means of the impugned order the petitioner's services have been terminated. 3 All. Hanumat Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 269 In view of the above, the impugned seems to have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, till further orders of this Court, the petitioner shall be paid salary subject to approval of the D.I.O.S. and the petitioner shall be permitted to continue in service. List in the month of July, 2008." In pursuance to the interim order, learned counsel for the respondent-Committee of Management and Principal of the Institution states that the petitioner was permitted to continue and was paid salary. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that without initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, impugned termination order has been passed, therefore, it is nullity and unsustainable in law. In regard to initiation of a disciplinary proceedings to an employee of the Intermediate College, under Regulations 31 onwards, procedure has been prescribed to initiate disciplinary proceedings, but in the present case, procedure has not been followed by the Principal of the College. In this view of the matter, the order impugned vitiates in law and is liable to be set aside. 5. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in pursuance to the interim order granted in the writ petition, the petitioner was permitted to continue and paid salary, which fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondent no.5. 6. On the other hand, Shri S.G. Singh, learned Standing Counsel submits that in the counter affidavit, details have been stated that the petitioner is not working in the Institution and has not been paid salary till date. 7. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material on record. 8. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition, the petitioner has clearly stated that the impugned order has been passed without issuing notice and without giving opportunity of hearing to him, therefore the order impugned has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondents either in counter affidavit or in oral submission before this Court. 9. In the opinion of this Court, the order impugned dated 16.2.2008 is being violative of principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. The impugned order has not been challenged in appeal in view of the fact that the order has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing. 10. In the case of Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1: 1998 SCC OnLine SC 663, it has been held that statutory alternative remedy is not bar in case the order is wholly without jurisdiction and has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 11. In view of the reasons recorded above and on the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that without initiating disciplinary proceedings and without affording opportunity of hearing, the impugned order dated 16.2.2008 has been passed. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed with all consequential benefits. 13. However, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue on Class IV posts and to pay him salary regularly month by month. ---------- (2026) 3 ILRA 270 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 11.03.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. THE HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. Writ A No. 4375 of 2025 U.O.I. & Ors. ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Kamla Devi ...Respondent Issue(s) for consideration Whether the Circular dated 03.07.2002, applies to the cases which were pending at the time of its issuance, including those where the employees had died prior to 03.07.2002 but whose dues had not yet been settled? Headnotes A. Service Law - Differential treatment cannot be permitted by extending the benefit of family pension to casual labourers of Northern Railway on one hand and denying the same benefit to casual labourers of North Eastern Railway, who are working under the same employer, i.e., the Railway Board under the Ministry of Railways. (Para 16) B. The Circular dated 03.07.2002, applies to the cases which were pending at the time of its issuance, including those where the employees had died prior to 03.07.2002 but whose dues had not yet been settled. The husband of the respondent died on 18.03.1991, whereas the Circular is dated 03.07.2002. An argument has been advanced by the petitioner that the said Circular is prospective in nature and cannot be applied in the case of the respondent. The said argument is misconceived, devoid of merit and rejected as a plain reading of the Circular dated 03.07.2002 shows that it was issued in response to cases received from various divisions seeking clarification regarding payment of settlement dues to casual labourers who had been screened but had expired before issuance of the panel. (Para 17) The judgment and order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned CAT, Lucknow, in O.A. No. 332/00315/2019 is just and proper and should not be interfered with. (Para 18) Writ petition dismissed. (E-4) Case Law Cited