# Purushottam Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 70
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-04
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4763 of 2024
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/purushottam-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54539
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Post of Panchayat
Sahayak
-
GO
dated
25.07.2021
-
Paragraph
no.
10
(vii)
and
16
-
Engagement on contractual basis by Gao
Sabha - After about two and half years,
the
petitioner
was
restrained
from
functioning - Validity challenged - No
show cause notice as required under Para
16 was issued - Effect - Paragraph no. 10
(vii) provides for service up to a maximum
period of two years and paragraph no. 16
7 All. Purushottam Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
71
provide for show cause notice before
dispensing with service - Applicability -
Held, paragraph 16 of the Government
Order would, in fact, applicable only in
cases where services of the contractual
employee are being dispensed with mid
term, which is not the present case -
Since condition enumerated in paragraph
16 are inapplicable and there does not
appear to be any right vested in the
petitioner for continuation of contractual
period, the petition fails. (Para 8 and 9)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

## Text

70 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disability. He might have operated some
PCO in the past but failed to continue with
the business and will be taken to be so only
on account of this disability. Disability if
disqualifies him to run a business, in my
considered view, is sufficient enough to
prove that such a disabled person deserves
family pension.

10. I find merit in the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the committee constituted
with four persons had no medical officer on
its
panel
to
question
the
disability
certificate issued by the Chief Medical
Officer. Even in the counter affidavit, there
is no such pleading that certificate was
obtained by fraud or forgery or procured
for the purpose of obtaining the family
pension. Certificate issued by a Chief
Medical
Officer
could
have
been
questioned only by the penal of medical
officers in the field of orthopaedics,
otherwise one could not say that merely
because someone ran a business in the past,
maybe he was a disabled, he would not be
entitled for family pension. This analogy
given and findings arrived at by the
committee constituted for the said purpose
and the order of Senior Account Officer is
clearly unsustainable.

11. The matter could have been
remanded, had the respondent questioned
the medical certificate by appointing a
medical officer or medical board having
knowledge of the field concerned. This
respondent having not done, I do not find
there to be any reason not to believe the
physical disability certificate issued by the
Chief Medical Officer. The Government
Order is very clear on the point and 60%
physical disability is sufficient enough for a
person to hold him entitled for family
pension as a disabled who had been
dependent of his parents who later died on
21.04.2013.

12. In view of the above the writ
petition succeeds and is allowed. The order
dated 12.11.2020 whereby his claim for
dependent/
family
pension
has
been
rejected is hereby set aside.

13. Respondents are directed to
accord family pension to the petitioner.
Appropriate orders be passed by the
competent authority within a period of one
month from the date of presentation of
certified copy of the order.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 70
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 4763 of 2024

Purushottam Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ravindra Kumar Yadava, Ram Suphal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey

A. Service Law - Post of Panchayat
Sahayak
-
GO
dated
25.07.2021
-
Paragraph
no.
10
(vii)
and
16
-
Engagement on contractual basis by Gao
Sabha - After about two and half years,
the
petitioner
was
restrained
from
functioning - Validity challenged - No
show cause notice as required under Para
16 was issued - Effect - Paragraph no. 10
(vii) provides for service up to a maximum
period of two years and paragraph no. 16
7 All. Purushottam Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
71
provide for show cause notice before
dispensing with service - Applicability -
Held, paragraph 16 of the Government
Order would, in fact, applicable only in
cases where services of the contractual
employee are being dispensed with mid
term, which is not the present case -
Since condition enumerated in paragraph
16 are inapplicable and there does not
appear to be any right vested in the
petitioner for continuation of contractual
period, the petition fails. (Para 8 and 9)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar
Yadava, learned counsel for petitioner, Dr.
Uday Veer Singh, learned State Counsel for
opposite parties no.1 to 7 and Mr. Dilip
Kumar
Pandey,
learned
counsel
for
opposite party no.8.

2.

Petition
has
been
filed
challenging resolution of the Gaon Sabha
dated 04.11.2022, letter dated 30.04.2024
by Gaon Sabha and advertisement dated
07.06.2024 issued for recruitment on the
post of Panchayat Sahayak/ Account-Cum-
Data Entry Operators.

3. It has been submitted that
petitioner was initially engaged on service
on the aforesaid post on contractual basis
on 30.10.2021 on a fixed honorarium of
Rs.6000/- per month whereafter he has
been continued in service till May 2024 but
has been restrained from functioning and a
fresh advertisement as impugned has been
issued.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner
has drawn attention to paragraph 16 of the
Government Order dated 25.07.2021 to
submit that in case of unsatisfactory work,
it was incumbent upon opposite parties to
have followed the procedure indicated
therein and to have issued a show cause
notice and provided an opportunity of
hearing to petitioner prior to dispensing
with his service. He has also adverted to the
resolution dated 04.11.2022 to submit that
the contract of service of petitioner was not
extended impliedly due to unsatisfactory
service, which clearly indicates a violation
of Government Order. He further submits
that ever since November 2022 till May
2024, opposite parties have been taking
work from petitioner without payment of
honorarium.

5. Learned counsel for opposite
parties have refuted submissions advanced
by learned counsel for petitioner with the
submission that petitioner was initially
appointed on 30.10.2021 on contract basis
on a fixed honorarium and as per
Government Order dated 25.07.2021, the
term of such contract was one year as per
paragraph 10 (vii) thereof which also
provides for extension of contract services
in case the Gaon Sabha deems so fit. It is
submitted that in the resolution of Goan
Sabha dated 04.11.2022, an open meeting
was held and no necessity was found for
continuation or extension of petitioner's
contractual
services.
It
is
therefore
submitted that since petitioner's contract
came to an end by efflux of time, there is
no vested right accrued for continuation of
services and that paragraph 16 is also
inapplicable since the contractual period
had ended.

6.

Upon
consideration
of
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for parties and perusal of material on
record, it is quite evident and admitted by
the petitioner in paragraph no.5 of writ
petition that he was initially engaged on the
said
post
on
contractual
basis
on
72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
30.10.2021
on
a
fixed
honorarium.
Paragraph 10 (vii) of the Government
Order dated 25.07.2021 clearly indicates
that such contractual services would be for
a period of one year only whereafter it shall
be discretion of the Gaon Sabha to extend
the
contractual
services
in
case
of
satisfactory work but only subject to a
maximum period of two years.

7. Once it is admitted by the
petitioner that he was appointed on
30.10.2021, then in terms of paragraph 10
(vii) of the aforesaid Government Order
dated 25.07.2021, such contractual services
were only for a period of one year subject to
continuation in terms of resolution of the
Gaon Sabha. In such circumstances, it is clear
that petitioner's contractual service came to
an end by efflux of time on 30.10.2021and
vide resolution dated 04.11.2022, Gaon
Sabha declined to extend the period of
contract merely indicating the fact that all the
members declined to extend contractual
services
of
petitioner.
The
impugned
resolution has thereafter been approved on
30.04.2024 by the District Panchayat Raj
Officer. It is quite evident that there is no
discussion with regard satisfactory or dissatisfactory service of petitioner.

8. In the considered opinion of this
Court, conditions indicated in paragraph 10
of Government Order dated 25.07.2021
would be inapplicable in the present facts and
circumstances where the contractual period
has ended by efflux of time. The said
paragraph 16 of the Government Order
would in fact the applicable only in cases
where services of the contractual employee
are being dispensed with mid term, which is
not the present case.

9. In view of aforesaid, since
condition enumerated in paragraph 16 of
the Government Order dated 25.07.2021
are inapplicable and there does not appear
to be any right vested in the petitioner for
continuation of contractual period, the
petition fails and is dismissed at the
admission stage itself. Parties to bear their
own costs.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 72
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 4825 of 2024

Manjeet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ram Raj, Rishabh Raj

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Aditya Mohan, Naresh Chandra

Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - Uttar
Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Contrary to provisions -
Certiorari - Quashing of entire departmental
proceedings - Principles of natural justice -
Impugned order challenged, in absence of legal
formality petitioner was asked to appear before
disciplinary authority for personal hearing and
submit his explanation to inquiry report - Held,
for conducting departmental inquiry, proper
opportunity of hearing should be afforded to an
delinquent employee - Copy of demanded
documents / relevant / relied upon documents
should be provided to him / her so that proper
defense reply could be filed before inquiry
officer - Oral inquiry is mandatory if charges are
serious , if charges are proved, incumbent may
be awarded major punishment - For conducting
oral inquiry, date, time and place should be
fixed - Inquiry report should be submitted
before
disciplinary
authority
-
Disciplinary