# Ram Narain Ram & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 206
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-04
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 26967 of 2008
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-narain-ram-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53045
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Payment of salary - Long
term appointment - Principle of equity -
Application - Appointment made against
14 sanctioned post out of 25 claimed
posts - One set of petitioners were found
to be working and there is also interim
order
in
their
favour
-
Long
term
appointment made against sanctioned
posts, how far liable to be protected -
Held, considering that these writ petitions
are pending for last more than 17 years
and first set of petitioners, i.e., Ram
Narain Ram & ors., have served and now
must
have
attained
age
of
superannuation, therefore, taking note of
principle of equity, their services if now
disturbed, it would be an inhuman
approach of this Court and that should be
avoided - Such long appointment even if
irregular be protected - Radhey Shyam
Yadav's case relied upon. (Para 17 and
19)

One set of writ petitions allowed & anr.set
of writ petitions dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:
3 All. Ram Narain Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
207

## Text

206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
would be required in the event the
petitioner is found guilty again, on an
inquiry held, in accordance with law.

36. In the result, this petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 16.04.2024 and the amended
order dated 30.04.2024, both passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Koraon, Prayagraj
are hereby quashed. It will be open to the
respondents, if they so elect, to hold a
departmental inquiry de novo from the
stage of the charge-sheet, taking into
account the petitioner's reply to the chargesheet dated 02.06.2015. The inquiry, if
held, would be undertaken strictly bearing
in mind the remarks carried in this
judgment about the procedure to be
followed in the inquiry. In the event the
petitioner is found guilty, the respondents
will proceed in accordance with Article
351-A of the CSR, submitting the matter
for the Governor's orders, but will not pass
any order of punishment themselves. In the
event a de novo inquiry is not elected to be
undertaken, the petitioner would be entitled
to all consequential benefits, including
emoluments for the period he has remained
out of employment.

37. There shall be no order as to
costs.

38. Let a copy of this order be
communicated to the Chief Secretary,
Government of U.P., Lucknow by the
Registrar (Compliance) with a direction to
ensure adherence with the settled law, in all
departments of the State Government,
regarding the salutary procedure relating to
conduct of departmental inquiries in
matters involving the imposition of major
penalties.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 206
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 26967 of 2008
With other connected cases

Ram Narain Ram & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Arvind Upadhyay, Ashok Kumar Singh, I.
Raj Singh, Suresh Chandra Varma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., S.K. Singh, S.R. Singh, V.K. Singh

A. Service Law - Payment of salary - Long
term appointment - Principle of equity -
Application - Appointment made against
14 sanctioned post out of 25 claimed
posts - One set of petitioners were found
to be working and there is also interim
order
in
their
favour
-
Long
term
appointment made against sanctioned
posts, how far liable to be protected -
Held, considering that these writ petitions
are pending for last more than 17 years
and first set of petitioners, i.e., Ram
Narain Ram & ors., have served and now
must
have
attained
age
of
superannuation, therefore, taking note of
principle of equity, their services if now
disturbed, it would be an inhuman
approach of this Court and that should be
avoided - Such long appointment even if
irregular be protected - Radhey Shyam
Yadav's case relied upon. (Para 17 and
19)

One set of writ petitions allowed & anr.set
of writ petitions dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:
3 All. Ram Narain Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
207
1. Radhey Shyam Yadav & ors.Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.; 2024 INSC 7

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. This is a bunch of six writ
petitions. Facts of each case would be
necessary to refer hereinafter for proper
adjudication of all petitions.

(A) WRIT - A No. - 26967 of 2008

2. This writ petition was filed by 13
petitioners that they were appointed as
Teachers/
Employees
of
RespondentInstitution,
namely,
Anjuman
Islamia
Higher Secondary School, Dauna Safipur,
Azamgarh, which was later on upgraded
from Junior High School to Higher
Secondary School.

3. Petitioners have claimed that
Deputy Director of Education 7th Region,
Gorakhpur has passed an order dated
01.04.1995 and sanction in all 25 posts and
petitioners were thereafter appointed in
pursuance of a selection process vide
appointment letters issued on different
dates between 2001 to 2005.

4.
In
2004
Committee
of
Management of Respondent-Institution has
filed a writ petition for taking the
Institution under grant-in-aid, which was
allowed vide order dated 30.09.2004 and a
Special Appeal thereof filed by the State
was rejected vide order dated 12.07.2005
and
accordingly
Respondent-Institution
was brought under grant-in-aid.

5. Thereafter, in order to give
financial approval, papers of petitioners
were submitted. District Inspector of
Schools, Azamgarh vide order dated
29.12.2007 found that there were only 14
sanctioned posts on which some of the
present petitioners were considered to be
legally
appointed.
Thereafter
District
Inspector of Schools on basis of material
available passed a detailed order whereby
petitioners, Ram Narain Ram and others,
were found to be in service, whereas
petitioners in connected writ petitions, i.e.,
Palakdhari Ram and others were not found
to be in service. It is further case of
petitioners that within a very short period,
aforesaid order was reviewed and a fresh
order dated 08.05.2008 was issued wherein
appointment of none of the petitioners were
considered to be legal and appointment of
other 13 persons (Palakdhari Ram and
others) were considered to be valid and
accordingly their approval was granted.
This order is under challenged in present
writ petition.

6. This Court vide order dated
04.06.2008
passed
an
interim
order
whereby impugned order dated 08.05.2008
was directed to be remain stayed. It appears
that petitioners have worked continuously
under the strength of same interim order as
it remains in currency. For reference
interim
order
dated
04.06.2008
is
reproduced hereinafter:

"Learned
Standing
Counsel
representing the respondent nos. 1 to 4 may
file counter affidavit within a month.
Learned counsel for the petitioner will have
two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder
affidavit.

Let notice be issued to respondent
nos. 5 and 6. Steps may be taken within a
week. Upon steps being taken office shall
fix a date in the week commencing
18.8.2008 and the writ petition may be
listed on the date mentioned in the notice.
208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Till the next date of listing the
effect and operation of the impugned
order dated 8.5.2008 (Annexure-6 to the
writ petition) passed by respondent no. 4
shall remain stayed."

(B) WRIT - A No. - 34523 of 2008

7. During pendency of aforesaid
writ petition, three other employees have
filed
this
writ
petition
challenging
impugned order dated 08.05.2008 since
their appointments were also considered to
be illegal. This Court has granted similar
interim relief to said petitioners also by
way of interim order dated 18.07.2008.
These petitioners also appears to continue
under
said
interim
order,
which
is
reproduced hereinafter:

"Learned
Standing
Counsel
appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4
prays for and is granted four weeks time to
file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit
may be filed within two week thereafter.

Issue notice to the respondent
nos. 5 and 6 to file counter affidavit within
the aforesaid period.
 List
immediately
thereafter
alongwith Writ Petition No. 26967 of 2008,
Ram Narain Ram and others vs. State of
U.P. and others.

Till the next date of listing, the
effect and operation of the impugned
order dated 08.5.2008, annexure-15 to the
writ petition passed by respondent no. 4,
District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh
shall remain stayed."

(C) WRIT - A No. - 51401 of 2013

8. During exchange of pleadings in
above two writ petitions, it was brought
into notice that other set of group of
employees (i.e. Palakdhari Ram and others)
were already terminated by different orders
passed in the year 2004, which was not
noted
when
impugned
order
dated
08.05.2008 in above two writ petitions was
passed in their favour, therefore, present
writ petition was filed by five petitioners
challenging their termination orders, which
were passed on ground of their long
absence. However, no interim order was
passed in this writ petition probably on
ground that there was an interim order in
favour of other set of petitioners in above
referred two writ petitions, i.e., Writ-A
Nos. 26967 of 2008 and 34523 of 2008.

(D) WRIT - A No. - 45035 of 2016

9. This writ petition was filed by
other set of petitioners (i.e., Palakdhari
Ram and others) challenging orders dated
20.06.2016, 13.07.2016 and 09.08.2016,
whereby on inquiry it was found that other
set of petitioners, i.e., Ram Narain and
others,
were
real
appointees
and
appointments of these writ petitioners were
forged. In the present writ petition also no
interim order was passed.

(E) WRIT - A No. - 39263 of 2017

10.
Above
referred
impugned
orders dated 20.06.2016, 13.07.2016 and
09.08.2016 were also impugned by six
petitioners of other set in this writ petition
and no interim order was passed.

(F) WRIT - A No. - 16753 of 2024

11. This is the last petition filed by
nine petitioners (Ram Narain and others)
challenging orders dated 25.09.2024 and
27.09.2024 passed by Additional Director
of Education (Secondary), U.P., Prayagraj
whereby salary of the petitioners was
stopped at belated stage, despite above
3 All. Ram Narain Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
209
referred writ petitions were pending and
interim orders were also in currency.

12. As referred above, there are two
set of petitioners. First set of petitioners are
Ram
Narain
Ram
and
others,
i.e.,
petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 26967 of
2008, 34523 of 2008 and 16753 of 2024,
who are still working under the strength of
interim order passed by this Court but in
the year 2024, their salary was stopped and
second set of petitioners are Palakdhari
Ram and others, i.e., petitioners in Writ
Petitions No. 51401 of 2013, 45035 of
2016 and 39263 of 2017, who are under
termination and there was no interim order
in their favour. According to records, age
of all petitioners appears to be more than
60 years.

13. Sri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri J.P. Singh,
learned counsel for first set of petitioners
submitted that way back by an order dated
01.04.1995 passed by Deputy Director of
Education 7th Region, Gorakhpur it was
categorically held that there were 25
sanctioned posts in Respondent-Institution
and thereafter District Inspector of Schools
on basis of material available passed a
detailed order dated 29.12.2007 whereby
first set of petitioners, i.e., Ram Narain
Ram and others, were found to be in
service, whereas second set of petitioners,
i.e., Palakdhari Ram and others were not
found to be in service. However, within a
very few days only on basis of a telephonic
instruction given by Director of Education
(Secondary)
a
contrary
order
dated
08.05.2008 was passed that Ram Narain
Ram and others were wrongly appointed
and
their
appointments
got
wrongly
approved by playing fraud. No reason was
assigned why such contrary order was
passed, i.e., details of instruction given on
telephone by a higher officer as well why
an order for lodging FIR was also passed.

14. Learned Senior Advocate also
submitted that even if the impugned order
considered to be true, it would only means
that there were 14 sanctioned posts and that
the second set of petitioners have already
been terminated, therefore, appointment of
first set of petitioners are liable to be
protected. He further refers the judgment in
the case of Radhey Shyam Yadav and
others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024
INSC 7 that a very long period of service
as in the present case (more than two
decades) be protected since it was not the
case that due procedure was not followed.
Only case against first set of petitioners is
that the post was not sanctioned but as
referred above today they are working
against the original sanctioned posts, i.e.,
14 in number. As allegation of fraud must
be based on substantial material but no
such material was disclosed either in
impugned order dated 08.05.2008 or
brought on record during exchange of
pleadings in present bunch of writ petitions.

15. Per contra, Sri Prabhakar
Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for
second set of petitioners, i.e., Palakdhari
Ram and others, submitted that they were
the original appointees against 14 vacant
posts.
First
set
of
petitioners
were
appointed on non sanctioned posts and by
impugned order dated 08.05.2008 District
Inspector of Schools has rightly informed
about the actual position by the Director of
Education and, therefore, by impugned
order second set of petitioners were found
in service. All necessary details were part
of the impugned order. Learned counsel
also submitted that without any inquiry
petitioners were terminated and, therefore,
principle of natural justice were violated. It
210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is their case that they were regularly
appeared
in
Collage,
however,
Management has not allowed or permitted
them to make signatures, therefore, ground
for termination, i.e., their long absence was
incorrect.

16. Heard learned counsel for
parties and perused the material available
on record.

17. Facts, as referred above, are
very disturbing since exact number of posts
was differently placed before respondentauthorities by Committee of Management
which creates the present litigations. Still,
considering that these writ petitions are
pending for last more than 17 years and
first set of petitioners, i.e., Ram Narain
Ram and others, have served and now must
have attained age of superannuation,
therefore, taking note of principle of equity,
their services if now disturbed, it would be
an inhuman approach of this Court and that
should be avoided.

18. The District Inspector of
Schools, Azamgarh vide order dated
29.12.2007 found that there were only 14
sanctioned posts against claimed 25 posts,
whereon petitioners of first set, i.e., Ram
Narain Ram and others, found to be in
service on inspection and accordingly a
direction was passed that their salary be paid
from State Exchequer. However, within a
very few months, i.e., about five months, on
08.05.2008 said order was reviewed and
second set of petitioners, i.e., Palakdhari Ram
and others, were found to be in service
without taking note that they were terminated
way back in the year 2004. Therefore, there
was no reason to review the earlier order and
this Court has rightly stayed operation of
impugned order dated 08.05.2008 and under
the strength of interim order petitioners of
first set, i.e., Ram Narain Ram and others,
were allowed to work. It is also very strange
that only on telephonic instruction given by a
higher officer, the earlier order was reviewed
without disclosing any reason whatsoever.
No reason was assigned why inspection
report was not followed. Even said petitioners
were not put on prior notice.

19. In aforesaid circumstances, the
judgment placed by learned Senior Advocate
appearing for first set of petitioners, i.e., Ram
Narain Ram and others, in Radhey Shyam
Yadav and others (supra) would be relevant
that such long appointment even if irregular
be protected, though facts do not very
specifically disclose that their appointments
were irregular and otherwise also they
worked against the sanctioned post only (14
in number).

20. Accordingly, Writ-A Nos. 26967
of 2008, 34523 of 2008 and 16753 of 2024
filed by first set of petitioners, i.e., Ram
Narain Ram and others, are allowed,
subject to factual verification by District
Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh about their
regular working in Respondent-College since
these writ petitions are pending for last more
than 17-18 years. The said writ petitioners
have worked under interim orders and during
pendency of these writ petitions, there was no
reason to State-Respondents to pass orders
dated 25.09.2024 and 27.09.2024 to stop their
salary, therefore, orders impugned in above
writ
petitions,
i.e.,
dated
08.05.2008,
25.09.2024 and 27.09.2024 are hereby set
aside. However, this order will not be
construed as a precedent since it is passed in
peculiar facts and circumstances of present
case.

21. So far as second set of
petitioners, i.e., Palakdhari Ram and others,
are concerned, they were terminated in the
3 All. Sanjay Kumar Sengar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
211
year 2004 by different orders on
ground of their long absence. No material
was produced either in pleadings or during
hearing that the said ground was factually
incorrect. Rather, it appears that in order to
adjust them, number of sanctioned seats
were increased from 14 to 25 without any
legal basis. Therefore, in absence of any
substantial material which could contradict
the ground for termination, no interference
is called for.

22. Accordingly, Writ-A Nos.
51401 of 2013, 45035 of 2016 and 39263
of 2017 filed by second set of petitioners,
i.e., Palakdhari Ram and others, are
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 211
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 63857 of 2007
With
Writ A No. 52910 of 2011

Sanjay Kumar Sengar ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
H.N. Malhotra, Ajay Bhanot, Gaurav Singh,
Kripa Shanker Singh, L.S. Yadav, Pankaj
Kumar, Ravindra Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Akhilesh Kumar Singh, G.K. Singh,
Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, R.K. Ojha, Sankalp
Narain, V.K. Singh

A. Service Law - Termination - Principle
of natural justice - Appointment on
probation - Allegation of not discharging
the
duty
diligently
was
made
-
Chargesheet
was
submitted
to
the
petitioner, and the same was not denied -
Submissions as made earlier on a notice
was reiterated - Effect - Held, at this
stage principles of natural justice were
substantially complied with. (Para 22)

B. Service Law - Termination - Allegation
of not discharging the duties as Assistant
Teacher,
Vyayam
diligently
and
of
disturbing the normal working of college
was made - The allegation has not been
specifically denied on the basis of relevant
material
and
St.ments
of
witnesses
recorded during inquiry - Effect - Held, it
is well settled that termination of services
of a probationer under the Rules of the
Employment or in exercise of Contractual
Right is neither per se dismissal nor
removal - However, if the order visits the
employee
against
his
character
or
integrity, it would be an order by way of
punishment irrespective of whether the
employee was a mere probationer or
temporary - If he was terminated without
giving
a
reasonable
opportunity
of
showing cause against his termination and
even in such matters if the principles of
natural justice were followed and there
was no deficiency of the procedure, the
writ Court would not inclined to interfere.
(Para 24 and 25)

One writ petition dismissed and another
writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Shamsher Singh Vs St. of Pun. (1974) 2 SCC
831

2. Swati Priyadarshini Vs the St. of M.P. & ors.,
2024 INSC 620).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned
counsel for petitioner; Sri V.K. Singh,