The Allahabad High Court has set aside the termination of a Senior Clerk who lost his job nearly 12 years after being appointed on compassionate grounds following his mother's death. The Court held that once the authorities had verified all relevant facts before granting the appointment, they could not later cancel it without establishing that the employee had concealed material information or committed fraud.
Justice Prakash Padia ruled that the termination order was legally unsustainable, particularly because no departmental inquiry was conducted and no charge-sheet was served before ending the employee's service.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Abhay Kumar Srivastava, sought compassionate appointment after his mother, Pushpa Srivastava, an Assistant Teacher, passed away in November 2008. As he was a minor at the time, he applied after attaining majority in 2011. Following verification of his documents, he was appointed as a Junior Clerk in September 2013 and was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk in December 2019.
Years later, a complaint alleged that the petitioner had secured the appointment by concealing the fact that his father had been serving as an Accountant in the Public Works Department when his mother died. Based on this complaint, multiple show-cause notices were issued, and eventually his services were terminated on August 11, 2025.
The petitioner challenged the termination before the High Court, arguing that his father's government service was already disclosed to the authorities before his appointment and that no regular disciplinary inquiry had ever been conducted.
Court's Observations
After examining the record, the Court found that the authorities themselves were aware of the petitioner's father's employment status at the time the compassionate appointment was processed. The recommendation letter sent before the appointment had specifically mentioned that the petitioner's father had retired from government service.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had continued in service for several years, received promotions and salary, and no disciplinary proceedings had been initiated during that period. Importantly, before terminating his services, the authorities neither issued a charge-sheet nor conducted a formal inquiry or examined witnesses.
Referring to earlier judgments of the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court, the bench observed that where an applicant has not suppressed material facts, the responsibility of verifying eligibility rests with the appointing authority before granting compassionate appointment.
As the Court observed,
"the petitioner was appointed after verification, and the authorities themselves had knowledge of his father's government service. In such circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law."
This finding was based on the records and the Court's analysis of the verification process.
The Court also relied on Supreme Court precedent holding that the State cannot take advantage of its own lapse after allowing an employee to continue in service for several years, particularly where there is no allegation of fraud, manipulation or suppression of material facts by the employee.
Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the Allahabad High Court quashed the termination order dated August 11, 2025.
The Court directed the District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh, and the Block Education Officer (Urban Area), Azamgarh, to reinstate Abhay Kumar Srivastava as Senior Clerk.
It further ordered payment of regular salary, back wages, and all consequential service benefits, directing that these benefits be released within two months from the production of a certified copy of the judgment.
Case Details
Case Title: Abhay Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 5 Others
Case Number: WRIT - A No. 13267 of 2025
Judge: Justice Prakash Padia
Decision Date: 10 July 2026
