The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a 32-year-old service-related writ petition concerning a temporary appointment in the Bahraich District Cooperative Bank, but imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the State authorities for their unexplained delay in filing a counter affidavit and failure to inform the Court about non-compliance with an interim order.
Background
The petitioner had been appointed as a Class IV employee, described as a “Sahyogi”, in September 1993. A subsequent appointment order was issued in December 1993. Both orders specifically stated that the appointment was temporary, would not exceed 89 days, could be terminated without prior notice, and would remain subject to regular selection.
The petitioner challenged the orders issued in March 1994 by which his appointment was annulled and he was relieved from service. He also sought continuation in service along with salary and arrears.
Justice Garima Prashad held that the appointment orders themselves did not create a permanent or continuing right. Since the petitioner’s appointment was expressly limited to 89 days and no subsequent order extending or regularising his tenure was produced, the Court found no enforceable right to continue in the post.
The Court also examined the petitioner’s grievance that the action under Section 128 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, was taken without following the procedure contemplated by the provision. However, the Court held that even if the procedural objection were accepted, it would not justify restoring an appointment whose stipulated tenure had already expired.
The Court further noted that the interim order passed in May 1994 directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to work and pay salary could not create a substantive right that did not otherwise exist.
“The interim order cannot independently support a claim for salary and other service benefits extending over more than three decades.”
While rejecting the substantive service claim, the Court expressed concern over the manner in which the proceedings had remained pending. The respondents had been directed in 1994 to file counter affidavits within six weeks, but the concerned authorities filed their counter only after further orders were passed in 2025.
The Court found that no explanation had been offered for this delay of more than three decades. It also noted that the Court had not been informed that its interim direction had remained unimplemented.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition on merits and discharged the interim order. At the same time, considering the unexplained delay and failure of the State authorities to bring the non-compliance with the interim order to the Court’s notice, the Court imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on the State.
The concerned authorities were directed to ensure payment of the amount to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of judgment.
Case Details
Case Title: Uma Kant Tripathi v. C/M Bahraich Coop Bank Ltd.
Case Number: Writ-A No. 2291 of 1994
Judge: Justice Garima Prashad
Decision Date: 23 September 2026
