# Naved Akhtar v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 560 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-04-15 - **Case number:** Writ - A No. 16760 of 2023 - **Bench:** Ajit Kumar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/naved-akhtar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53170 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Service Law-Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226---Writ petition against the impugned order rescinding the contract of employment of the petitioner on the ground that he had been found negligent in discharge of his duties as a contract employee--- Show cause notice issued to the petitioner for remaining absent for seven days--- Petitioner submitted reply appending therewith the prescription paper of 'advised bed rest' by the doctor but no consideration has been accorded to the reply and even the medical advise was not even referred to in the order impugned--- The medical prescription for bed rest as advised by the medical officer of the district hospital itself has not been taken into consideration and the decision has been taken to rescind the contract of the petitioner arbitrarily holding him to be guilty of negligence in discharge of duties- --Impugned order cannot be sustained in law and accordingly is hereby quashed--- respondents are directed to consider the reinSt.ment of the petitioner as contract employee and pass appropriate orders in the light of the circular dated 7th March, 2019. (Para 7, 8 & 9) (E-15) ## Text 560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES application so far as denial of pay protection is concerned to ex-army men, but government order would apply only to those cases where candidates were selected after its issuance. All those who have been sent for training to be ultimately given appointment will form one homogeneous group to be privileged with all such benefits including pay protection and their claim will not yet hit by the government order. 15. In so far as judgment cited by learned standing counsel, I do not find any quarrel about the same, qua the law laid down therein because I am also of the view that government order need not be set aside in special circumstances of this case, rather it is held to be not applicable to the present case. 16. In view of above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Respondents no. 3 is directed to surrender benefit of last pay protection to the petitioners as has been given to the first batch of trainees pursuant to U.P. Police Constable Recruitment 2018.Appropriate order shall be passed and consequential benefit will be accorded to the petitioners within maximum period of thirty days from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. ---------- (2025) 4 ILRA 560 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.04.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. Writ - A No. 16760 of 2023 Naved Akhtar ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Narendra Kumar, Sri Pradeep Kumar Maurya, Sri Ramesh Narayan Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Service Law-Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226---Writ petition against the impugned order rescinding the contract of employment of the petitioner on the ground that he had been found negligent in discharge of his duties as a contract employee--- Show cause notice issued to the petitioner for remaining absent for seven days--- Petitioner submitted reply appending therewith the prescription paper of 'advised bed rest' by the doctor but no consideration has been accorded to the reply and even the medical advise was not even referred to in the order impugned--- The medical prescription for bed rest as advised by the medical officer of the district hospital itself has not been taken into consideration and the decision has been taken to rescind the contract of the petitioner arbitrarily holding him to be guilty of negligence in discharge of duties- --Impugned order cannot be sustained in law and accordingly is hereby quashed--- respondents are directed to consider the reinSt.ment of the petitioner as contract employee and pass appropriate orders in the light of the circular dated 7th March, 2019. (Para 7, 8 & 9) (E-15) (Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.) 1. Heard Sri Ved Prakash Shukla, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Narendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has assailed the order dated 24th May, 2022 passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut rescinding the contract of employment of the petitioner as a 'Ward Boy' on the ground that he had been found negligent in discharge of his duties as a 4 All. Naved Akhtar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 561 contract employee and accordingly, District Health Committee decided to rescind his contract. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had fallen ill and accordingly was advised bed rest by the doctor, namely Dr. Annu Gupta, the emergency medical officer of the Government District Hospital, Meerut from 19th April, 2022 to 25th April, 2022 and while petitioner was issued with show cause notice on 28th April, 2022 for remaining absent for seven days. He submitted reply thereto appending therewith the prescription paper of 'advised bed rest' by the doctor. This reply was submitted by the petitioner on 4th May, 2022 but no consideration has been accorded to the reply and even the medical advise was not even referred to in the order impugned. It is also submitted that the decision of the District Level Committee was not communicated to the petitioner at any point of time. 4. Sri Shukla has argued that in view of the guidelines/ circular issued by the Director Health Mission, Uttar Pradesh dated 7th March, 2019, the District Level Health Committee could proceed to rescind the contract of employment only in the rarest of the rare cases where the charges are very serious otherwise certain other punishments have been directed to be imposed like 15 days cut in the pay or no increment in the next one year or transfer to another block or if the posting is in the district level then transfer to another district or any penalty that may be reasonable and according to the rules by the committee. The relevant circular dated 7th March, 2019 is reproduced hereunder: "प्रेषक, धमशन धनदेशक, िाष्ट्रीय स्वास्थ्य धमशन, उति प्रदेश। सेवा में, समस्त म ख्य धचधकत्साधिकािी, समस्त जनपद, पत्राांकः197/SPMU/DAPHR/GRC/2018-19/12394-75धदनाांक: 07.3.2019 धवषयः िाष्ट्रीय स्वास्थ्य धमशन के अन्तगटत जनपदों में कायटित सांधवदा कमटचारियों द्वािा कायट में अधनयधमतता पाये जाने के धवरुद्ध कायटवाही प्रधक्रया हेत । महोदय/महोदया, उपिोक्त धवषयक अवगत किाना है धक िाष्ट्रीय स्वास्थ्य धमशन के अांतगटत जनपदों में कायटित सांधवदा कमटचारियों द्वािा कायट में अधनयधमतता पाये जाने के धवरुद्ध धनम्न प्रधक्रया का पालन किना स धनधित किें: अ. धजला स्तिीय सांधवदा कमी (धजसकी धनय धक्त प्राधिकािी धजला स्वास्थ्य सधमधत है) सांधवदा कमी द्वािा धकसी र्ी अधनयधमतता होने पि सवटप्रथम कमी को धलधखत चेतावनी व स्पष्टीकिर् धलया जाये औि उससे सांत ष्ट न होने की दशा में धजला स्ति पि म ख्य धचधकत्साधिकािी की अध्यक्षता में गधित सधमधत के समक्ष िखा जायेगा। सधमधत के सदस्य धनम्नवत् हैः- 1. धजलाधिकािी द्वािा नाधमत अधिकािी। 2. अपि म ख्य धचधकत्साधिकािी / नोडल अधिकािी सम्िधन्ित धजला। 3. धजलाधिकािी द्वािा धवत धवर्ाग का नाधमत अधिकािी। 4. धचधकत्सा अिीक्षक (अगि अधनयधमतता सम्िधन्ित इकाई से है)। यधद उपिोक्त सधमधत द्वािा कमटचािी दोषी पाया जाता है तो आिोप की गांर्ीिता को देखते हुए सधमधत द्वािा धनम्न धिन्द ओां में से अपनी सांस्त धत धजला स्वास्थ्य सधमधत को धनर्टय हेत अग्रसारित की जायेगी। 1. 15 धदन की वेतन की कर्ौती। 2. 01 वषट के वाधषटक िढोतिी की कर्ौती। 3. यधद ब्लॉक स्तिीय कमटचािी हो तो अन्य ब्लॉक में स्थानान्तिर् की सांस्त धत। 4. यधद धजला स्तिीय कमटचािी हो तो अन्य धजला में स्थानान्तिर् की सांस्त धत। 562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 5. सधमधत द्वािा अन्य कोई धनयमान साि देय दण्ड। 6. यधद आिोप अत्यांत गांर्ीि हो तो सांधवदा समाधप्त की सांस्त धत। धजला स्वास्थ्य सधमधत द्वािा धलया गया धनर्टय ही अधन्तम धनर्टय माना जायेगा। नोर्- यधद जनपद में कायटित सांधवदा कमी प्रदेश स्ति से धनय क्त हैं एवां धनय धक्त प्राधिकािी िाज्य स्ति पि है अथवा जनपद से स्थानान्तिर् प्रस्ताधवत है तो धजला स्वास्थ्य सधमधत अपनी सांस्त धत धमशन धनदेशक, िाष्ट्रीय स्वास्थ्य धमशन को धनर्टय हेत प्रेधषत किेगी। ि. इसी प्रकाि िाज्य स्ति पि र्ी सधमधत का गिन धमशन धनदेशक, िाष्ट्रीय स्वास्थ्य धमशन की अध्यक्षता में धकया जायेगा। सधमधत के सदस्य धनम्नवत् हैः- 1. सांिांधित महाप्रिांिक। 2. महाप्रिांिक, मानव सांसािन। 3.महाधनदेशक, धचधकत्सा एवां स्वास्थ्य द्वािा नाधमत अधिकािी (सांिांधित कायटक्रम)। 4.महाधनदेशक, परिवाि कल्यार् द्वािा नाधमत अधिकािी (सांिांधित कायटक्रम)। 5. धवत धनयांत्रक, िाष्ट्रीय स्वास्थ्य धमशन। यधद उपिोक्त सधमधत द्वािा कमटचािी दोषी पाया जाता है तो आिोप की गांर्ीिता को देखते हुए धनम्नवत् दण्ड हेत धनर्टय धलया जायेगा- 1. 15 धदन की वेतन की कर्ौती। 2. 01 वषट के वाधषटक िढोतिी की कर्ौती। 3. यधद कायटक्रम का कमटचािी हो तो अन्य कायटक्रम में स्थानान्तिर् की सांस्त धत । 4. सधमधत द्वािा अन्य कोई धनयमान साि देय दण्ड। 5. यधद आिोप अत्यन्त गांर्ीि हो तो सांधवदा समाधप्त की सांस्त धत। उक्त धदशा धनदेशों का तत्काल प्रर्ाव से पालन किना स धनधित किें। िाज्य स्ति पि गधित सधमधत धनर्टय अधन्तम होगा। र्वदीया, ह० अप० (स िा यादव) महाप्रिन्िक (मानव सांसािन)।" 5. This circular that has been relied upon by the petitioner and pleadings to this effect has been raised in paragraph 8 of the writ petition, has not been denied in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. Only this much has been stated that these are matters of record and can be verified therefrom. 6. In paragraph 17 and 19 of the writ petition sufficient pleadings have been raised that petitioner has been be deligently discharging duties except for those seven days when he absented for medical ground and that there was no negligence attributable to the daily discharge of duties. These paragraphs have come to be replied in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the counter affidavit but no specific denial has come as to how the petitioner was found to be guilty for negligence in discharge of his duties except for these seven days of absence. Even the recommendation of District Health Committee which has been relied upon by the Chief Medical Officer in passing the order impugned has not been appended with the counter affidavit. 7. In such above view of the matter, it is quite apparent on the face of record that the medical prescription for bed rest as advised by the medical officer of the district hospital itself has not been taken into consideration and the decision has been taken to rescind the contract of the petitioner arbitrarily holding him to be guilty of negligence in discharge of duties. 8. In such circumstances, therefore, the order passed by the Chief Medical Officer dated 24th May, 2022 cannot be sustained in law and accordingly is hereby quashed. Consequently, the recommendation of District Health Committee dated 28th April, 2022 is also hereby quashed. 4 All. Veer Bahadur Singh Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. & Ors. 563 9. The respondents are directed to consider the reinstatement of the petitioner as contract employee and pass appropriate orders in the light of the circular dated 7th March, 2019. 10. Appropriate order shall be passed within a maximum period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. ---------- (2025) 4 ILRA 563 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J. Writ C No. 169 of 2025 Veer Bahadur Singh ...Petitioner Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, Sri Nishant Mehrotra Lease deed-Execution-The respondent was chosen in draw of lots- with respect to location no.1375- for retail outlet dealership- claim illegal selection-as lease deed of offered leased property was signed by only one of the coowners-other co-owners witnessed the leasethere is difference between executing a particular document and being a witness to the same document-co-owners witnessing a particular document would not amount to compliance of the Brochure that categorically requires execution by all the co-ownersimpugned order quashed. W.P. allowed. (E-9) Cases Cited: 1. Poonam Verma & ors.Vs Delhi Development Authority reported in (2007) 13 SCC 154 2. Rahul Singh Vs Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. & ors., Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:40545-DB 3. Akshay Kumar Jaiswal Vs U.O.I. & ors., Neutral Citation No. -2024:AHC:107416-DB 4. Abrar Qureshi Vs U.O.I. & ors., Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42480-DB 5. Rashmi Saroj Vs Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas through its secretary A Wing Shashtri Bhawan & ors., (Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J. & Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his complaint dated 24.01.2024 filed with the respondent no.2 with regard to the illegal selection of the respondent no.3. 3. The facts of the case are that the respondent no.3 was chosen in draw of lots with respect to location no.1375 for retail outlet dealership. The main complaint of the petitioner is that the respondent no.3 had offered a leased property which did not comply with the mandatory provision laid down under Clause 4 (vi) (a) of the Brochure June, 2023 which reads as under:- "The other conditions with respect to offering of land are as under:-