# Smt. Kavita Chaturvedi & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1856
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-09
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 8349 of 2011
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kavita-chaturvedi-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54435
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

1856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
15. In view of the reasons recorded above and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am
of the considered opinion that the order dated 22.3.2021, being contrary to the Rules, is hereby
quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

16. The respondents are directed to ensure payment of retiral dues as well as arrears of
salary, if any, to the petitioner with 8 % interest, within a period of three months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1856
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ A No. 8349 of 2011

Smt. Kavita Chaturvedi & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
Whether the State could deny the benefit of promotion to the petitioners from the post of Telephone Operator
to Lower Division Assistant (LDA) based on an omission in the statutory service rules, even though similarly
situated employees had already been granted the same promotion under a 1988 Government Order?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - The petitioners were working as Telephone Operators in the Board of Revenue. They
challenged an order dated 20.12.2000 that rejected their claims for promotion to the post of Lower Division
Assistant (LDA). They argued that under a GO dated September 6, 1988, Telephone Operators were explicitly
eligible for promotion to vacant LDA posts. Furthermore, three of their predecessors had already been
promoted under this policy in 1990 and 1994. The State argued that the U.P. Board of Revenue Ministerial
Service Rules, 1983 did not contain any statutory provision for promoting Telephone Operators to LDA posts.
They contended that executive G.O.s cannot override statutory rules and that the promotional claim was
legally invalid.
B. The 1983 Service Rules omitted "Telephone Operators" simply because the posts were created
later, in 1986. The 1988 G.O. was specifically issued by the State to bridge this legislative gap
and prevent employee stagnation. (Para 18, 22)
C. Violation of Article 14 - The State had already adopted the 1988 policy and promoted three similarly
situated Telephone Operators. Denying the same benefit to the petitioners-while 22 LDA posts sat vacantconstituted unconstitutional discrimination u/Article 14. (Para 21)
D. Approbate and Reprobate - The Court emphasized that the State cannot accept a policy for one set of
individuals and reject it for another under identical circumstances without a rational basis. (Para 23, 24)
4 All. Smt. Kavita Chaturvedi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1857
The impugned rejection order dated 20.12.2000 was quashed. The State was directed to reconsider the
petitioners' case for promotion to LDA under the guidelines of the 1988 Government Order. The promotion
review process must be concluded within six months. Eligible petitioners must receive all consequential
benefits, including notional seniority and back-arrears of pay.
Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. U.P. Board of Revenue Ministerial Officials Association, Lucknow - Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and Others,
dated 06.04.1988 (Para 12)
2. State of U.P. and others Vs. U.P. Board of Revenue Ministerial Officials Association, Civil Writ to Appeal
No.1107 of 1988, Lucknow - Allahabad (Para 12)

List of Acts
 U.P. Board of Revenue Ministerial Service Rules, 1983

List of Keywords
 hostile discrimination, approbate, reprobate, promotion, government, order, post, legislative gap.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Devendra Mohan Shukla, Manish Jauhari
For Respondent(s): C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashwani Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajiv Srivastava, learned Additional CSC for the
respondent - State.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated
20.12.2000 passed by respondent No.4 contained as annexure-4 to the writ petition with a further
prayer to issue writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reconsider the claim of the
petitioners to be promoted on the post of Lower Division Assistant w.e.f. 20.12.2000 in the light of
Government Order dated 06.09.1988.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that in the year 1983 service rules namely U.P. Board of
Revenue Ministerial Service Rules, 1983 were framed for governing service conditions of the
employees working in Revenue Board. The said rules do not mention about the post of Telephone
Operators in the department, therefore, benefit extended under the rules to the other posts in the
department were denied to the Telephone Operators.

4. The post of Telephone Operators in the department was initially not sanctioned but in
the year 1986 when the PBS exchange was installed in the Board of Revenue, three posts of
Telephone Operators were sanctioned by the State Government vide order dated 29.01.1986.

5. As the post of Telephone Operator in the department was sanctioned in the year 1986
and by the time, the service rules applicable in the department were already framed, the petitioners
believes that the post of Telephone Operators was not mentioned in the service rules because the
1858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
creation of the post of Telephone Operators in the department was post dated. After creation of post
of Telephone Operators, the appointment of three female candidates namely, Vijay Laxmi, Mala
Bharti and Salma Bano were made by the respondents on 13.01.1987.

6. On 06.09.1988, State Government introduced a rotation policy which was communicated
to the then Secretary, Board of Revenue for adopting the same by which it was provided that since
there was no rules for promotion of Telephone Operators in the Civil Secretariat, the posts of
Lower Division Assistants which were running vacant in the Secretariat and against which no
selection had been made by the Public Service Commission, might be filled up by promoting the
Telephone Operators according to their seniority.

7. The Government Order dated the 06.09.1988 was adopted by the then Secretary of
Board of Revenue and accordingly the benefit of the said Government Order was extended to the
Telephone Operators working at that time in the department. The first promotion of a Telephone
Operator namely Km. Vijay Laxmi was made on the post of Lower Division Assistant on the
16.06.1990 on a vacancy occurred due to promotion of Mohd. Aslam on the post of a Reference
Clerk. On the same line when another vacancies on the post of Lower Division Assistant occurred,
the other two Telephone Operators were also promoted on the post of Lower Division Assistant by
the opposite parties on 05.01.1994.

8. Since the post of Telephone Operators in the department became vacant due to
promotion of Telephone Operators working therein, the petitioners and one other candidate namely
Smt. Anjum Bano were selected and appointed on the aforesaid vacant posts of Telephone
Operators. A dispute regarding parity between the employees working in Revenue Board and the
Civil Secretariat had been resolved earlier also by way of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court
and implementation of the recommendations of Samta Samiti. However, the said resolutions were
related to granting parity in pay scale of the employees working in both the departments but the
reasons of granting such parity emanates from an undisputed fact that the State Government does
not treat the employees working in Board of Revenue, Lokayukta Office, High court and State Law
Office, different from the employees working in the Civil Secretariat.

9. In the department of the petitioners, there are 22 posts of LDA lying vacant for more
than five years and no selection has been made by the Public Service Commission on the said posts
in spite of the requisition sent by the Board to the Commission. On 31.05.1990 the proposal was
sent by the department to the State Government for making a provision for promotion of Telephone
Operators on the post of Lower Division Assistant but till date no decision has been taken by the
State Government on this issue.

10. It was in the year 2010 when the petitioners sought the information regarding the
decision taken over their on 21.09.2010 promotion, the department informed them that the request
of the petitioners to promote them on the post of Lower Division Assistant was already rejected by
means of the impugned order. Immediately after receiving the information by means of letter dated
21.09.2010, the petitioners again applied under Right to Information Act demanding the copy of the
impugned order. In response to the application moved by the petitioners under Right to Information
4 All. Smt. Kavita Chaturvedi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1859
Act, the department provided copy of the impugned order to the petitioners on 26.04.2011. Hence,
the present writ petition has been preferred challenging the same.

11. Submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that once three persons,
namely, Vijay Laxmi, Mala Bharti and Salma Bano have been granted promotion on the post of
Lower Division Assistant, denial for grant of benefits to the petitioners to grant promotion is
discriminatory in nature and violative of Constitution of India.

12. He further submitted that this Court in the case of U.P. Board of Revenue Ministerial
Officials Association, Lucknow - Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and Others dated 06.04.1988
annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition, granted benefit as admissible to U.P. Civil Secretariat
and the said judgment was affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Writ to Appeal No.1107 of
1988 in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. U.P. Board of Revenue Ministerial Officials
Association, Lucknow - Allahabad, therefore, his submission is that once it has been held that all
the allowances are admissible to the employees of Board of Revenue, discrimination cannot be
carve out in granting promotion in the Board of Revenue.

13. His next submission is that the petitioners are entitled for grant of promotion on the
post of Lower Division Assistant as well as Revenue Officer and are entitled for payment of all
allowances and arrears as admissible to the post. Due to non grant of promotion and other benefits,
the petitioners are suffering a lot and the action of the respondents is discriminatory and not tenable
in the eyes of law.

14. On the other hand, learned Additional CSC invited attention of this Court on the
contents of counter affidavit, wherein there is no explanation about grant of promotion to three
persons, namely, Vijay Laxmi, Mala Bharti and Salma Bano. He submitted that there is no
provision in the rules in regard to grant of promotion to Telephone Operators on the post of Lower
Division Assistant in Board of Revenue.

15. He next submitted that in case the Government Order issued for grant of promotion on
the post of Lower Division Assistant is contrary to the provisions contained under statutory rules,
the Government Order is liable to be ignored. He invited attention of this Court to paragraph 4 of
the counter affidavit and submitted that in view of Rule 4, the provisions regarding appointments in
temporary and officiating capacity, if any contained in rules relating to Public Services made by the
Governor in exercise of the powers under the proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution prior to
commencement of these Rules are hereby rescinded and on the said basis his submission is that on
the basis of Government Order issued, the promotion cannot be made and the impugned orders
does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and is just and valid.

16. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.

17. The controversy involved in the present writ petition centers around the entitlement of
the petitioners, working as Telephone Operators, to be considered for promotion to the post of
Lower Division Assistant in terms of Government Order dated 06.09.1988.
1860 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
18. It is not disputed that the U.P. Board of Revenue Ministerial Service Rules, 1983 do not
contain any provision for the post of Telephone Operator. However, the reason for such omission is
apparent, inasmuch as the said post was created subsequently in the year 1986. Thus, non-inclusion
of the post in the Rules cannot be construed to deny promotional avenues altogether.

19. The State Government, in order to remove stagnation and provide promotional
opportunities to Telephone Operators, issued Government Order dated 06.09.1988, permitting their
promotion to the post of Lower Division Assistant against vacant posts where no recruitment had
been made through the Public Service Commission.

20. The record clearly indicates that the said Government Order was adopted by the Board
of Revenue and implemented in its true spirit. In pursuance thereof, three similarly situated
employees, namely, Vijay Laxmi, Mala Bharti and Salma Bano, were promoted to the post of
Lower Division Assistant in the years 1990 and 1994.

21. Once the benefit of the aforesaid Government Order has been extended to similarly
situated employees, denial of the same benefit to the petitioners, without any rational basis,
amounts to hostile discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

22. The plea taken by the respondents that there is no provision in the statutory rules for
such promotion is not tenable in the facts of the present case. The Government Order dated
06.09.1988 was issued precisely to fill the gap in the Rules and has already been acted upon by the
respondents themselves.

23. It is a settled principle of law that the State cannot approbate and reprobate. Having
granted promotion to certain employees under the same policy, the respondents cannot deny similar
treatment to the petitioners without assigning any justifiable reason.

24. The respondents have failed to explain as to why the petitioners have been treated
differently from their predecessors, despite availability of vacant posts and absence of recruitment
through the Public Service Commission. Such action is clearly arbitrary and unsustainable.

25. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order
dated 20.12.2000 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed.

26. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

27. The impugned order dated 20.12.2000 passed by respondent No.4 is hereby quashed.

28. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioners for promotion to the post of Lower Division Assistant in terms of Government Order
dated 06.09.1988, in accordance with law.

29. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date
of production of a certified copy of this order.
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