# Neelesh Kumar Verma v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 345
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-22
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 2983 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neelesh-kumar-verma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53548
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C.S.C., Pranjal Mehrotra

Issue for Consideration
(A) Legality of the termination of contractual
employee, which was made on the basis of
recommendation
of
a
Committee,
not
constituted as per the prevailing law.
(B) Scope of writ power under Article 226 of the
Constitution to interfere in the matter of
contractual appointment.
(C) Applicability of Administrative Circular and
Government Order, when either Rule is absent
or Rule is silent on the concern issue.
Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Termination
-
Contractual appointment - Termination is
based on a recommendation made by the
District Health Committee - Earlier also
recommendation
was
made,
but
not
resulted into termination - No specific
charge except for the vague charges
regarding
dereliction
in
discharge
of
duties by the petitioner was made -
Circular prescribing for constitution of
District Health Committee to be consisting
of four members to assess the work of a
contractual employee and also to examine
the report of enquiry, was not followed -
Effect :
Held : The constitution of the District Health
Committee itself was de hors the rules/ circular.
It is a settled principle of law and so held by the
judgments of the Supreme Court and of this
Court where rules are silent or rules have not
been framed the administrative circular and the
Government
Order
shall
prevail
and
the
authorities are hide bound in law to follow these
procedure prescribed under the rules and the
circular letter - When rules require a particular
thing to be done in a prescribed manner, it
should be done in that manner alone - The
recommendations made by the committee which
was not duly constituted as per the circular
letter, should not have been considered and
ought not to have been made a ground to
rescind the contract of appointment of the
petitioner. [Paras 8, 9 and 11]
(B) Constitution of India,1950 - Article
226 - Writ - Scope of interference -
Matter
relating
to
termination
of
contractual appointment - Fairness in the
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
procedure adopted by the authority -
Relevance :
Held : Where the State and its instrumentalists
are employers, they must ensure not only
fairness in procedure by following their own
circulars and instructions but should also be fair
in their assessment of work and conduct of the
contract based employees. If an experienced
employee's work and conduct can be ensured to
be smooth and in an orderly manner by issuing
warning to him, such employer should refrain
from undergoing fresh exercise of selection
which will cause further burden upon public
exchequer. [Para 10] (E-1)
Case Law Cited
Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and
others, (1967) SCC Online SC 16: AIR 1967 SC
1910; Union of India and Another v. Ashok
Kumar Agarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147; M/s Tata
Chemicals
v.
Commissioner
of
Customs
(Preventive) Jamnagar, (2015) 11 SCC 628;
Krishna Rai (dead) through LRs and others v.
Banaras Hindu University through Registrar and
others, (2022) 8 SCC 713 - referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India, Article 226; Circular dated
07.03.2019.
List of Keywords
Contractual appointment; Termination; District
Health Committee; Recommendation; Charges;
Dereliction in discharge of duty; Misconduct;
Administrative Circular; Government Order.
Case Arising From
Order dated 11.01.2023 terminating the service
of the petitioner, a contractual employee.

## Text

7 All. Neelesh Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
345
authority was not justified in rejecting the
appeal following the principles of civil law
of abatement where upon the death of a
party, the actionable claim comes to an end
unless and until heirs in succession pursued
the same.

11. In view of the above, the Court
finds the order passed by the appellate
authority to be unsustainable. Accordingly,
the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
The order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the
Commissioner,
Varanasi
Division,
Varanasi, is hereby quashed.

12. The departmental appeal of the
deceased employee stands restored before
the appellate authority with a direction to
dispose of the pending appeal on merits
within a maximum period of two months
from the date of production of certified
copy of this order.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 345
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 2983 of 2023

Neelesh Kumar Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashwani Kumar Yadav, Yakub Ali

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Pranjal Mehrotra

Issue for Consideration
(A) Legality of the termination of contractual
employee, which was made on the basis of
recommendation
of
a
Committee,
not
constituted as per the prevailing law.
(B) Scope of writ power under Article 226 of the
Constitution to interfere in the matter of
contractual appointment.
(C) Applicability of Administrative Circular and
Government Order, when either Rule is absent
or Rule is silent on the concern issue.
Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Termination
-
Contractual appointment - Termination is
based on a recommendation made by the
District Health Committee - Earlier also
recommendation
was
made,
but
not
resulted into termination - No specific
charge except for the vague charges
regarding
dereliction
in
discharge
of
duties by the petitioner was made -
Circular prescribing for constitution of
District Health Committee to be consisting
of four members to assess the work of a
contractual employee and also to examine
the report of enquiry, was not followed -
Effect :
Held : The constitution of the District Health
Committee itself was de hors the rules/ circular.
It is a settled principle of law and so held by the
judgments of the Supreme Court and of this
Court where rules are silent or rules have not
been framed the administrative circular and the
Government
Order
shall
prevail
and
the
authorities are hide bound in law to follow these
procedure prescribed under the rules and the
circular letter - When rules require a particular
thing to be done in a prescribed manner, it
should be done in that manner alone - The
recommendations made by the committee which
was not duly constituted as per the circular
letter, should not have been considered and
ought not to have been made a ground to
rescind the contract of appointment of the
petitioner. [Paras 8, 9 and 11]
(B) Constitution of India,1950 - Article
226 - Writ - Scope of interference -
Matter
relating
to
termination
of
contractual appointment - Fairness in the
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
procedure adopted by the authority -
Relevance :
Held : Where the State and its instrumentalists
are employers, they must ensure not only
fairness in procedure by following their own
circulars and instructions but should also be fair
in their assessment of work and conduct of the
contract based employees. If an experienced
employee's work and conduct can be ensured to
be smooth and in an orderly manner by issuing
warning to him, such employer should refrain
from undergoing fresh exercise of selection
which will cause further burden upon public
exchequer. [Para 10] (E-1)
Case Law Cited
Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and
others, (1967) SCC Online SC 16: AIR 1967 SC
1910; Union of India and Another v. Ashok
Kumar Agarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147; M/s Tata
Chemicals
v.
Commissioner
of
Customs
(Preventive) Jamnagar, (2015) 11 SCC 628;
Krishna Rai (dead) through LRs and others v.
Banaras Hindu University through Registrar and
others, (2022) 8 SCC 713 - referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India, Article 226; Circular dated
07.03.2019.
List of Keywords
Contractual appointment; Termination; District
Health Committee; Recommendation; Charges;
Dereliction in discharge of duty; Misconduct;
Administrative Circular; Government Order.
Case Arising From
Order dated 11.01.2023 terminating the service
of the petitioner, a contractual employee.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Archit Madhyan, learned
counsel for petitioner, Shri Ashish Kumar
Gupta, learned Advocate holding brief of
Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for
respondent no.2 and learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel representing state
respondents.

2. By means of this petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution
petitioner has assailed the order dated
11.01.2023 terminating the contract of
appointment of the petitioner which has
continued to operate ever since 13.07.2016.

3. The submission advanced by
learned counsel for petitioner is that the
charges that are sought to be levelled
against the petitioner are absolutely vague,
inasmuch as the recitals contained in the
order impugned itself reflect that earlier
some recommendation was made by the
District Health Committee on 24.01.2018
but the respondents themselves decided not
to terminate the contract of appointment of
the petitioner. Now again on the basis of
some
enquiry
report
and
the
recommendation made by the District
Level Committee on 31.12.2022 contract of
appointment has come to be rescinded
whereas
as
it
is
contended,

the
recommendations made by the District
Health Committee does not refer to any
specific
charge except dereliction in
discharge of duty by the petitioner and
showing a little bit of disobedience in the
matter
of
directions
issued
by
the
authorities but there is no specific incident
recorded to the effect that petitioner
committed any misconduct. It is further
contended that the enquiry report which has
been relied upon while passing the order
independent of the recommendations made
by the District Health Committee, the
charge basically of extortion committed by
the petitioner vide charge No. 2, was not
found proved and the other charges related
to the period 2016-17 relating to which
earlier recommendations made by the
District Health Committee in the year 2018
7 All. Neelesh Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
347
were acted upon so proceedings stood
dropped.

4. It is further contended by learned
counsel appearing for petitioner that
circular letter issued in the matter of terms
and
conditions
of
the
contractual
appointees provides that the termination of
contract of such contractual employees
should be a last resort and there are other
punishments minor in nature which have
been recommended to be imposed vide
clause 1 to 6. It is also contended that the
District Level Committee which as is
contemplated
for
the
purposes
of
assessment of records and performance of
contractual employees, should consist of
four members whereas the District Health
Committee that made recommendations in
2018 consisted of two members and the
recent recommendations that were made by
another
committee
consisted
of
two
members only and, hence, District Health
Committee was also not validly constituted
as per the circular letter dated 07.03.2019.

5. Learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel on the contrary sought to defend
the impugned order for the reasons
assigned therein. Shri Gupta, learned
Advocate holding brief of Shri Pranjal
Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent
No. 2 submits that respondent No. 2 has no
role to play and to this effect a short
counter affidavit has been filed.

6. Having heard learned counsel for
respective parties and having perused the
records, I find it to be quite established that
earlier recommendations made by the
District Health Committee on 24.11.2018
was not acted upon which related to certain
irregularities in the discharge of duties by
the petitioner in the relevant year 2016-1718. This also comes to be reflected in the
enquiry report which has been heavily
relied upon while passing the impugned
order. It also further transpires and clearly
so
from
the
records
that
the
recommendations made by the District
Health Committee in the year 2022 did not
refer to any specific charge except for the
vague charges regarding dereliction in
discharge of duties by the petitioner,
inasmuch
as
the
committee's
recommendations are signed only by the
Chief
Medical
Officer
who
is
the
coordinator
of
the
District
Health
Committee and the District Health Officer.
From the enquiry report also it is quite
apparent that the charge No. 2 which was a
basic charge drawn against the petitioner of
extortion by way of corruption was also not
established. The other charges are vague
and the charges that relate to the year 2018
ought not to have been taken into
consideration in view of the subsequent
report sbmitted by the District Health
Committee in the year 2018 having not
been acted upon.

7. I further notice that the circular
letter
dated
07.03.2019
provides
a
procedure to be followed in the matter of
action to be taken against a contractual
employee and prescribed for constitution of
District Health Committee to be consisting
of four members to assess the work of a
contractual employee and also to examine
the report of enquiry if submitted against
the such employee so as to warrant any
action disciplinary in nature. The relevant
circular
letter
dated
07.03.2019
is
reproduced hereunder in its entirety:

"भमशन भनदेशक,

राष्ट्रीय स्वास्थ्य भमशन,

उतार रदेश ।

समस्त मुख्य भचभकत्साभधकारी,
348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

समस्त जनपद,

एजांक
197/SPMU/DAPHR/GRC/2018-19/भदनांक 07- 03.2019

भविय राष्ट्रीय स्वास्थ्य भमशन के अन्तगवत जनपदों में
कायवरत संभवदा कमवचाररयों द्वारा कायव में अभनयभमतता पाये जाने के
भवरुद्ध कायवाही रभक्रया हेतु ।

महोदय/महोदया,

उपरोि भवियक अवगत कराना है भक राष्ट्रीय
स्वास्थ्य भमशन के अंतगवत जनपदों में कायवरत संभवदा कमवचाररयों
द्वारा कायव में अभनयभमतता पाये जाने के भवरुद्ध भनम्प्न रभक्रया का
पालन करना सुभनभश्चत करें

अ भजला स्तरीय संभवदा कमी (भजसकी भनयुभि
राभधकारी भजला स्वास्थ्य सभमभत है)

संभवदा कमी द्वारा भकसी िी अभनयभमतता होने पर
सववरथम कमी को भलभखत चेतावनी व स्पिीकरण भलया जाये और
उससे संतुि न होने की दशा में भजला स्तर पर मुख्य
भचभकत्साभधकारी की अध्यक्षता में गभठत सभमभत के समक्ष रखा
जायेगा । सभमभत के सदस्य भनम्प्नवत् है :-

1. भजलाभधकारी द्वारा नाभमत अभधकारी ।

2. अपर मुख्य भचभकत्साभधकारी नोडल अभधकारी
सम्प्बंभधत भजला ।

3. भजलाभधकारी द्वारा भवत्त भविाग का नाभमत
अभधकारी ।

4. भचभकत्सा अधीक्षक अगर अभनयभमतता
सम्प्बभन्धत इकाई से है ।

यभद उपरोि सभमभत द्वारा कमवचारी दोिी पाया जाता
है तो आरोप की गंिीरता को देखते हुए सभमभत द्वारा भनम्प्न भबन्दुओं
में से अपनी संस्तुभत भजला स्वास्थ्य सभमभत को भनणवय हेतु अग्रसाररत
की जायेगी ।

1. 15 भदन की वेतन कटौती ।

2. 01 विव के वाभिवक बढ़ोत्तरी की कटौती ।

3. यभद ब्लॉक स्तरीय. कमवचारी हो तो अन्य ब्लॉक
में स्थानान्तरण की संस्तुभत ।

4. यभद भजला स्तरीय कमवचारी हो तो अन्य भजला में
स्थानान्तरण की संस्तुभत ।

5. सभमभत द्वारा अन्य कोई भनयमानुसार देय दण्ड ।

6. यभद आरोप अत्यंत गंिीर हो तो संभवदा समाभप्त
की संस्तुभत ।

भजला स्वास्थ्य सभमभत द्वारा भलया गया भनणवय ही
अंभतम भनणवय माना जायेगा ।

"नोट- यभद जनपद में कायवरत संभवदा कमी रदेश
स्तर से भनयुि हैं एवं भनयुभि राभधकारी राज्य स्तर पर है अथवा
जनपद से स्थानांतरण रस्ताभवत है तो भजला स्वास्थ्य सभमभत अपनी
संस्तुभत भमशन भनदेशक, राष्ट्रीय स्वास्थ्य भमशन को भनणवय हेतु रेभित
करेगी । "

8. Thus comparing the District Health
Committee
report
and
signatories
thereupon both of 2018 and 2022 qua the
provisions contained in the circular letter
dated
07.03.2019,
I
find
that
the
constitution
of
the
District
Health
Committee itself was de hors the rules/
circular. It is a settled principle of law and
so held by the judgments of the Supreme
Court and of this Court where rules are
silent or rules have not been framed the
administrative circular and the Government
Order shall prevail and the authorities are
hide bound in law to follow these
procedure prescribed under the rules and
the circular letter Sant Ram Sharma v.
State of Rajasthan and others (1967)
SCC Online SC 16: AIR 1967 SC 1910
and Union of India and Another v.
Ashok Kumar Agarwal (2013) 16 SCC
147.
7 All. Taru Kashyap Vs. Union of India & Ors.
349

9. The law is equally well settled that
when rules require a particular thing to be
done in a prescribed manner, it should be
done in that manner alone; M/S Tata
Chemicals v. Commissioner of Customs
(Preventive) Jamnagar (2015) 11 SCC
628, Krishna Rai (dead) through LRs
and others v. Banaras Hindu University
through Registrar and others (2022) 8
SCC 713.

10. There may be a question that
contract employees are not protected under
government service rules and hence, this
Court may not exercise its power under
Article 226 of the Constitution, but in my
considered view, where State and its
instrumentalists are employers, they must
ensure not only fairness in procedure by
following
their
own
circulars
and
instructions but should also be fair in their
assessment of work and conduct of the
contract
based
employees.
If
an
experienced employee's work and conduct
can be ensured to be smooth and in an
orderly manner by issuing warning to him,
such
employer
should
refrain
from
undergoing fresh exercise of selection
which will cause further burden upon
public exchequer.

11. In these circumstances, therefore,
the
recommendations
made
by
the
committee which was not duly constituted
as per the circular letter, should not have
been considered and ought not to have been
made a ground to rescind the contract of
appointment of the petitioner. Further I
notice that the charge of extortion by way
of corruption has not been proved in the
enquiry report and, therefore, the action
ultimately rescinding the contract should
not have been taken and petitioner should
have been issued with a warning to be
sincere in his work assigned to him.

12. In view of the above discussions
therefore, the order impugned cannot be
sustained in law.

13. Accordingly writ petition succeeds
and is allowed. The order terminating the
contract appointment of the petitioner dated
11.01.2022 is hereby quashed.

14. Petitioner shall be reinstated and
shall be paid his remuneration.

15. Appropriate order shall be passed by
the authority within a period of one month
reinstating the petitioner into employment,
reviving his contract employment within two
weeks' time, however, petitioner shall not be
entitled for any back wages.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 349
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 4360 of 2023

Taru Kashyap ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dheeraj Awasthi, Devak Vardhan

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Harsha Yadav

Issue for Consideration
(A) Applicability of the welfare provisions
regarding maternity leave to a woman employed
on contractual basis.
(B) Overriding effect of the engagement letter
dated 03.09.2021, which prohibit the maternity
benefit, to the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.