# Leelawati Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1861
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-03
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 9421 of 2023
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/leelawati-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54437
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

4 All. Leelawati Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1861
30. It is further directed that in case the petitioners are found entitled, they shall be granted
all consequential benefits, including notional seniority and arrears, as admissible under law.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1861
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Writ A No. 9421 of 2023

Leelawati Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
(a) Whether a departmental disciplinary inquiry can legally continue after the delinquent employee dies in
harness?
(b) Whether the state authorities could legally keep an inquiry pending for years without obtaining an official
extension or prior leave from the Court, given that a binding judicial order had specifically mandated the
inquiry to be completed within a strict four-month timeframe?
(c) Whether a government department can legally withhold retiral and consequential service benefits from a
deceased employee's legal heir on the pretext that the department itself lost or misplaced the employee's
official service book and GPF passbook?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - The petitioner's late husband, Ram Nath Gupta, was appointed as a
Compounder/Pharmacist (Homeopathy) in 1984. He was dismissed twice during his service (in 2001 and
2007) but was reinstated both times following orders by the High Court. Following his second reinstatement
order, the Director (Homeopathy) officially brought him back into service on 20.12.2011. Per the Court's
binding directives in a connected matter (Special Appeal No. 123 of 2010 r/w the order passed in WP No.
4633 of 2007), the department was strictly mandated to conclude any fresh disciplinary inquiry within a
maximum period of four months from this reinstatement date.

An inquiry committee was formed, and an inquiry report was generated in 2013 alleging forged appointment
papers. While being asked to appear for personal verification in late 2014, the employee informed the
department that he was suffering from cancer and undergoing treatment at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai.
On 02.12.2016, Ram Nath Gupta passed away while the departmental inquiry was still pending. No final order
or punishment was ever executed. The State refused to release his retiral and consequential service benefits
to his widow, citing the pending inquiry and claiming his official service book and GPF passbook were 'not
traceable.'
B. Disciplinary proceedings cannot be continued against a deceased employee. Where a delinquent
employee dies during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, such proceedings cannot be continued
thereafter and are liable to be treated as having abated. Upon the demise of the employee, the
relationship between the employer and the employee ceases to exist, and consequently, no
further action in the nature of disciplinary proceedings can be sustained in the eyes of law. No
1862 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
punitive order can be passed against a deceased employee, as the imposition of punishment under the
applicable service rules presupposes the existence of a living employee. (Para 20 to 22)
C. Where a court directs that disciplinary proceedings be concluded within a fixed time frame,
such direction is binding and must be strictly adhered to. If, for any reason, the proceedings
cannot be concluded within the prescribed period, it is incumbent upon the authority concerned
to seek extension of time by moving an appropriate application before the Court. Even in cases
where the delinquent employee does not object to continuation of proceedings beyond the stipulated period,
the disciplinary authority is nevertheless under a legal obligation to obtain prior leave of the Court before
proceeding further or passing any final order. (Para 18)
It was incumbent upon the respondents to conclude the inquiry proceedings within the stipulated period of
four months. Alternatively, they ought to have sought extension of time from the Court in accordance with
law. The continuation of disciplinary proceedings beyond the prescribed time frame, without obtaining leave
of the Court, is clearly impermissible. (Para 19)
D. Responsibility for proper maintenance, safe custody, and upkeep of service records lies
squarely upon the concerned department and not upon the employee. In the event such records are
found to be missing or misplaced, the burden lies upon the department to reconstruct or verify the service
particulars of the employee from available sources. The department cannot be permitted to derive
advantage from its own lapse, nor can such deficiency be used as a ground to deny legitimate
service benefits to an employee or his legal heirs. (Para 23)
The petitioner is entitled to the release of all consequential service benefits of her late husband. Accordingly,
the opposite parties are directed to ensure the payment of all retiral dues, including gratuity, GPF and family
pension, along with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum, calculated from the date on which the
petitioner became entitled to such benefits, i.e., 21.12.2016, being the date on which the application for
release of post-retiral dues was submitted. (Para 24)
Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. A.K.S. Rathore (Dead) through LRs Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 7028 of 2022 (Para 12)
2. Rajeshwari Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 SCC OnLine All 42 (Para 12)
3. Pushpa Devi Vs. State of U.P. and another, Writ-A No. 15004 of 2022 (Para 12)
4. State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Prakash Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891 (Para 13)
5. Satya Prakash Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., Writ-A No. 5008 of 2024 (Para 14)
6. Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthy Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine All 14267 (Para 19)
7. Rajeshwari Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 SCC OnLine All 42 (Para 20)
8. Pushpa Devi Vs. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 3264 (Para 21)

List of Keywords
 retiral dues, pension, gratuity, service, dismiss, disciplinary proceedings, death, inquiry, maintenance, service
records, prescribed period.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): S M Singh Royekwar, Akhand Vikram Singh, Saksham Agarwal, Sumeet Tahilramani,
Surya Bhan Singh
For Respondent(s): C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.)
4 All. Leelawati Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1863

1. Heard Shri Sumeet Tahilramani learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashwani Kumar
Singh Rathore, learned Standing counsel for respondents.

Relief Sought

2. The petition has been filed seeking mandamus for releasing the salary dues of the late
husband of the petitioner namely Ram Nath Gupta who died in harness on 02.12.2016 while
working as Pharmacist (Homeopathy) in Government Homeopathic Hospital, Dhanaupur,
Sultanpur.

Factual Background

3. The petitioner is the widow of late Ram Nath Gupta, who died in harness on 02.12.2016
while serving on the post of Pharmacist (Homeopathy) at the Government Homeopathic Hospital,
Dhanaupur, Sultanpur.

4. The brief facts, as set forth in the petition, are that the petitioner?s husband was initially
appointed on 22.11.1984 to the post of Compounder in the Government Homeopathic Hospital.
Subsequently, by order dated 11.09.2001, the Director (Homeopathy) dismissed him from service
while he was working as a Pharmacist. The said dismissal order has been brought on record as
Annexure No. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the order of dismissal was challenged before this Court.
Pursuant to various orders passed by this Court, the State Government, vide order dated
30.01.2004, reinstated all similarly situated Pharmacists (Homeopathy) into service. Consequent
thereto, the Director (Homeopathy), by order dated 13.02.2004, issued posting orders to the
reinstated Pharmacists. Further, in continuation of the reinstatement, the Director (Homeopathy),
vide communication dated 27.04.2004, issued necessary directions for payment of salary to such
reinstated employees.

5. The petitioner?s husband was once again dismissed from service on 03.07.2007.
Challenging the said action, he preferred Writ Petition No. 4633 (S/S) of 2007 titled Ram Nath
Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others. During the pendency of the said writ petition, certain other
similarly situated employees, who had also been dismissed on identical grounds, approached this
Court by filing Writ Petition No. 640 (S/S) of 2010 titled Rajendra Pratap Srivastava vs. State of
U.P. and others, which came to be dismissed by order dated 04.02.2010. Against the said judgment,
Special Appeal No. 123 of 2010 titled Rajendra Pratap Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others, was
preferred, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated
12.08.2010. The Division Bench set aside the order under challenge and directed reinstatement of
the appellant forthwith, along with payment of salary from the date of joining. It was further
directed that the period of dismissal shall not be treated as a break in service. Additionally, liberty
was granted to the authorities to conduct a fresh inquiry from the stage of submission of reply to
the charge-sheet, to be concluded within a maximum period of four months from the date of service
of the certified copy of the order.

6. Since the writ petition filed by the petitioner's husband, being Writ Petition No. 4633
(S/S) of 2007, involved identical questions of fact and law, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide
1864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order dated 27.05.2011, allowed the said writ petition in terms of the judgment and order dated
12.08.2010 passed in Special Appeal No. 123 of 2010, insofar as it related to the petitioner?s
husband.
7. The respondents, vide office order dated 20.12.2011, acknowledged and acted upon the
aforesaid order passed in Writ Petition No. 4633 (S/S) of 2007. In view of the directions issued in
Special Appeal No. 123 of 2010, the respondents were under an obligation to conclude the
disciplinary proceedings within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified
copy of the said order. Since the respondents had acknowledged the order by issuing the office
order dated 20.12.2011, it can reasonably be inferred that the time period for concluding the inquiry
was to be reckoned from that date. In compliance with the judgment dated 27.05.2011, the Director
(Homeopathy), by office memorandum dated 20.12.2011, reinstated the petitioner?s husband in
service at Government Hospital, Dhanaupur, Sultanpur. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner?s
husband was also a beneficiary of the judgment dated 12.08.2010 passed in Special Appeal No. 123
of 2010, and therefore, the inquiry against him was required to be concluded within the stipulated
period of four months.

8. In furtherance thereof, an inquiry committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of
Dr. Anand Kumar Chaturvedi, the then Principal of Government Shri Durgaji Homeopathy
Medical College and Hospital, Azamgarh. The petitioner's husband appeared before the inquiry
committee on 19.09.2012 and submitted his written statement. The Inquiry Officer, however, found
him guilty of obtaining appointment on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. The inquiry
report dated 08.07.2013 was forwarded to him through a letter dated 10.07.2014 issued by the
Directorate, calling upon him to submit his reply along with supporting documents.

9. In response thereto, late Ram Nath Gupta submitted his reply on 22.08.2014, asserting
his innocence and requesting re-investigation and a fresh inquiry. Thereafter, vide letter dated
19.09.2014, the Directorate forwarded copies of educational and technical qualification certificates
along with other relevant records pertaining to his appointment, and directed him to appear before
the authorities. In reply, the petitioner?s husband, vide letter dated 13.11.2014, informed that he
was suffering from cancer and undergoing treatment at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, and
accordingly sought time on medical grounds. Subsequently, on 02.12.2016, he passed away while
the departmental inquiry was still pending. Notably, no final order concluding the disciplinary
proceedings or imposing any punishment was ever passed against him. The death certificate has
been placed on record as Annexure No. 1. Thus, the departmental inquiry remained inconclusive at
the time of his death.

Arguments of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner

10. Submission of the petitioner is that upon the death of the petitioner?s husband during
the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the said proceedings stood abated. It is further
contended that in view of the specific direction issued in Special Appeal No. 123 of 2010 (supra),
requiring the inquiry to be concluded within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the
certified copy of the order, the respondents cannot be permitted to keep the inquiry pending
indefinitely without seeking appropriate extension or leave from this Court. Since Writ Petition No.
4633 (S/S) of 2007 filed by the petitioner's husband had been allowed in terms of the aforesaid
4 All. Leelawati Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1865
Special Appeal, the inquiry in his case was also required to be concluded within the same stipulated
period.

11. It is also submitted that, by virtue of the acknowledgment letter dated 20.12.2011
issued by the Director (Homeopathy), the petitioner?s husband stood reinstated, and from that date
onwards, the respondents were under a legal obligation to conclude the inquiry within four months.
However, it remains undisputed that the inquiry proceedings were not concluded within the
prescribed time and, in fact, continue to remain pending.

12. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance upon the following judgments rendered by this Court, wherein it has been categorically
held that in cases where a disciplinary inquiry remains incomplete and the delinquent employee
dies during its pendency, such proceedings cannot thereafter be continued or concluded:

 (i) A.K.S. Rathore (Dead) through LRs vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 7028 of 2022
(with particular emphasis on paragraph 8);

 (ii) Rajeshwari Devi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 SCC OnLine All 42 (with
emphasis on paragraph 6);

 (iii) Pushpa Devi vs. State of U.P. and another, Writ-A No. 15004 of 2022 (with emphasis
on paragraph 11).

13. It has further been contended on behalf of the petitioner that where a court directs that
an inquiry be concluded within a specified period, the same is required to be strictly adhered to, and
the proceedings cannot be permitted to continue beyond the stipulated time without obtaining leave
of the Court. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Prakash Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
891, particularly paragraphs 62 and 63 thereof.

14. Lastly, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents are illegally
withholding the retiral and consequential service benefits of late Ram Nath Gupta, the petitioner?s
husband, on the pretext that his service book and GPF passbook are not traceable. In this regard,
learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered in
Satya Prakash Srivastava vs. State of U.P., Writ-A No. 5008 of 2024, to contend that the
department cannot take shelter under the plea of missing service records to deny an employee the
benefits to which he is otherwise lawfully entitled.

Arguments of Learned Counsel for the Respondents

15. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has opposed the submissions advanced on behalf
of the petitioner, contending that disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner?s husband, late
Ram Nath Gupta, were still pending. It is further submitted that in the absence of the service book
and GPF records, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any retiral or consequential benefits.
1866 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Consideration by the Court

16. The Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

17. It is not in dispute between the parties that late Ram Nath Gupta died on 02.12.2016
while in service. It is further admitted that he had been reinstated in service on 20.12.2011 and had
continuously discharged his duties from the date of reinstatement till his demise on 02.12.2016. It
is also an admitted position that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner?s
husband remained pending and were not brought to their logical conclusion. The State has failed to
assign any plausible or justifiable reason as to the basis on which the disciplinary proceedings
could be continued beyond the stipulated period of four months, particularly in the face of the
categorical directions issued in Special Appeal No. 123 of 2010, read with the order passed in Writ
Petition No. 4633 of 2007 (Ram Nath Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others).

18. The Hon?ble Supreme Court, in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Prakash Singh (supra),
has clearly enunciated in paragraphs 62 and 63 of the judgment that where a court directs that
disciplinary proceedings be concluded within a fixed time frame, such direction is binding and
must be strictly adhered to. It has been held that if, for any reason, the proceedings cannot be
concluded within the prescribed period, it is incumbent upon the authority concerned to seek
extension of time by moving an appropriate application before the Court. The judgment further
clarifies that even in cases where the delinquent employee does not object to continuation of
proceedings beyond the stipulated period, the disciplinary authority is nevertheless under a legal
obligation to obtain prior leave of the Court before proceeding further or passing any final order.
The relevant paragraphs 62 and 63 are extracted hereunder:

 "62. While affirming the aforesaid view of the Full Bench, we would like to provide
clarification on certain points not touched by such bench. First, in view of unseen institutional
hurdles that can slow down swift action, it may not always be possible for the disciplinary
authority in each such case where a fixed time has been stipulated by a tribunal/court to conclude
the proceedings to apply and seek extension of time before expiry of such time although there can
be no gainsaying that applying and obtaining an extension before expiry is eminently desirable. In
exceptional cases, even after expiry of the stipulated time, such an application can be moved; and,
depending on the cause shown for inability or failure to conclude the proceedings within the time
stipulated and also for not applying for extension before expiry, the tribunal/court may, in its
discretion, allow or reject the prayer for extension. If the application is rejected, the proceedings
cannot be carried forward unless a superior court, reversing the order of rejection, permits the
disciplinary authority to so proceed. Secondly, if the delinquent employee objects to continuation of
proceedings beyond the time stipulated, the disciplinary authority without proceeding further ought
to apply for extension of time and may not go ahead till such time its prayer for extension is
granted on such application. Proceeding despite objection and without there being an extension
could give rise to apprehensions of bias. Therefore, applying for extension upon halting the
proceedings awaiting order on the application would be an advisable course of action to balance
the interests of both the employer and the employee. Thirdly, even if the delinquent employee has
not objected to continuation of proceedings beyond the time stipulated by the tribunal/court but
before the final order is passed in the proceedings, the disciplinary authority would be bound to
4 All. Leelawati Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1867
seek and obtain extension of time. This is for the simple reason that the sanctity of the orders of
tribunals/courts cannot be disrespected by errant parties. The dignity of the judicial process would
be seriously eroded and there would be nothing left of the rule of law if orders of tribunals/courts,
validly made, are disobeyed and the disobedience is encouraged by being indulgent. Finally, we
hasten to add that if a tribunal/court stipulates a fixed time by which an enquiry or proceedings for
disciplinary action ought to be concluded coupled with a rider that, in default, the
enquiry/proceedings will stand lapsed, the disciplinary authority in such a case would cease to
have the jurisdiction to proceed further unless, of course, citing genuine grounds, a recall of such
default clause is sought and obtained to proceed further in accordance with law.

 63. We also hold that continuation of disciplinary proceedings beyond the time stipulated
by a tribunal/court could invite interdiction if no bona fide attempt is shown to have been made to
seek an extension of time. However, much would depend on the facts of each case and it may not be
possible to lay down a common formula applicable to each case. In an exceptional case, the
tribunal/court would have the discretion to overlook the laxity and make such direction as it deems
fit in the circumstances."

19. In view of the aforesaid legal position, and considering that the judgment in Special
Appeal No. 123 of 2010, read with Writ Petition No. 4633 of 2007 (Ram Nath Gupta vs. State of
U.P. and others), had admittedly come to the knowledge of the respondents, as is evident from the
office memorandum dated 20.12.2011, it was incumbent upon the respondents to conclude the
inquiry proceedings within the stipulated period of four months. Alternatively, they ought to have
sought extension of time from the Court in accordance with law. The continuation of disciplinary
proceedings beyond the prescribed time frame, without obtaining leave of the Court, is clearly
impermissible. Furthermore, upon the death of the employee, the disciplinary proceedings
automatically stand abated. In this regard, this Court in Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthy vs. New
India Assurance Company Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine All 14267, has held as follows:

 "18. These judgments of the Supreme Court consequently recognize that the delay in
concluding a departmental enquiry would not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings or render it invalid
or non est. The Court has to take into consideration and balance all the relevant factors. The Court
must consider in that balance the need for preserving the sanctity of the administration. On the
other hand, fairness towards the delinquent employee requires that disciplinary proceedings should
be concluded expeditiously. Hence, the nature of the charge, its complexity and the reasons for that
delay are all relevant considerations which have to be borne in mind. Where the court has
stipulated a period of time within which an enquiry has to be concluded, the direction of the Court,
particularly in the form of a mandamus, has to be duly observed. It would not be open to the
employer to willfully disregard the fixation of a time limit as a matter of no consequence. However,
the fixation of a period within which a disciplinary enquiry has to be concluded, in an order of the
Court, does not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to extend time in an appropriate case having
due regard to all the facts and circumstances which have been noted above. Whether the time
should be extended on a consideration of the relevant circumstances is for the court to determine."

20. Similarly, in Rajeshwari Devi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 SCC OnLine All 42,
this Court, in paragraph 6, has categorically held that upon the death of an employee, all his ties
1868 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with worldly affairs, including the relationship of employment, come to an end. It has been
observed that no punitive order can be passed against a deceased employee, as the imposition of
punishment under the applicable service rules presupposes the existence of a living employee.
Thus, the employer-employee relationship ceases immediately upon the death of the employee. The
relevant paragraph 6 is extracted below:

 "6. Holding of departmental enquiry and imposition of punishment contemplates a prerequisite condition that the employee concerned, who is to be proceeded against and is to be
punished, is continuing an employee, meaning thereby is alive. As soon as a person dies, he breaks
all his connection with the worldly affairs. It cannot be said that the chain of employment would
still continue to enable employer to pass an order, punitive in nature, against the dead employee.
All the punishments contemplated under the rules are such which can be imposed on a person who
is still continuing to be an employee. Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondentNagar Nigam, on repeated query did not controvert the fact that as soon as an employee dies, his
relationship of employer and employee comes to an end. This would automatically result in
cessation of proceedings including departmental proceedings pending against him."

21. In Pushpa Devi vs. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 3264, this Court has reiterated
the settled legal position that disciplinary proceedings cannot be continued against a deceased
employee. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:

 "25. So far as, present case is concerned, inquiry proceeding was initiated, charge sheet
was issued, but before submission of reply of the charge sheet, husband of petitioner died. Inquiry
officer came to the conclusion that, as husband of petitioner (employee) died during the pendency
of inquiry proceeding, therefore, it is required on the part of disciplinary authority to drop the
disciplinary proceeding. Thereafter, no further order has been passed upon the inquiry proceeding.
Only after filing of writ petition by the petitioner, order was passed to decide the representation of
petitioner dated 21.12.2021, upon which order of recovery dated 27.05.2022 has been passed for
recovery of amount of Rs. 10,14,594/-. In fact, it is nothing, but re-initiation of earlier inquiry,
which has not been completed in light of recommendation made by the inquiry committee."

22. Thus, in light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the legal position stands
crystallized that where a delinquent employee dies during the pendency of disciplinary
proceedings, such proceedings cannot be continued thereafter and are liable to be treated as having
abated. Upon the demise of the employee, the relationship between the employer and the employee
ceases to exist, and consequently, no further action in the nature of disciplinary proceedings can be
sustained in the eyes of law.

23. Insofar as the contention advanced by learned counsel for the State that in the absence
of the service book and GPF passbook of the petitioner?s late husband, the employer cannot be
compelled to extend service benefits is concerned, the same is devoid of merit. In Satya Prakash
Srivastava vs. State of U.P. (supra), it has been categorically held that the responsibility for proper
maintenance, safe custody, and upkeep of service records lies squarely upon the concerned
department and not upon the employee. In the event such records are found to be missing or
misplaced, the burden lies upon the department to reconstruct or verify the service particulars of the
4 All. Vijai Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1869
employee from available sources. The department cannot be permitted to derive advantage
from its own lapse, nor can such deficiency be used as a ground to deny legitimate service benefits
to an employee or his legal heirs. The relevant extract from the said judgment is reproduced
hereunder:-

 "11. It is trite that the responsibility of safe keeping and upkeep of service records of an
employee is upon the department itself and not the employee and in case such service records are
missing or misplaced, onus is upon the department itself to complete such service details of an
employee. In the absence of any such service records, the department cannot take benefit of such
an omission nor such burden can be shifted upon the employee so as to deny him benefits to which
he is justifiably expected."

Conclusion and Directions

24. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the undisputed factual matrix of the case, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the release of all consequential
service benefits of her late husband. Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to ensure the
payment of all retiral dues, including gratuity, General Provident Fund (GPF), and family pension,
in respect of late Ram Nath Gupta, who died in harness on 02.12.2016 while serving as Pharmacist
(Homeopathy) at Government Homeopathic Hospital, Dhanaupur, Sultanpur. The aforesaid
amounts shall be released within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order, along with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum, calculated from the date
on which the petitioner became entitled to such benefits, i.e., 21.12.2016, being the date on which
the application for release of post-retiral dues was submitted.

25. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1869
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 10432 of 2019

Vijai Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
(a) Whether a termination based on alleged "suppression of facts" can stand if the non-disclosure did not
result in an unfair eligibility advantage or prejudice to the employer?
(b) Whether a variance in the recorded DOB across different genuine certificates automatically amounts to
fraud or actionable civil misconduct?