Smt Anita Bhardwaj v. State Of Up And 4 Others
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
Judge as well as the order passed in special appeal are set aside
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 12
Judgment
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. This review application has been filed on behalf of the writ petitioner stating that the Division Bench judgment of this Court dismissing the Appeal arising out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge contains error on the face of the record and consequently is liable to be reviewed. Undisputed facts as emerged from the record are that the petitioner was appointed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) on contract basis for discharging nursing duties. Her engagement since 2016 was continued. On 28.11.2020, an order came to be passed by the Chief Medical Officer/ Secretary, District Health Society, Shahjahanpur, directing termination of services of the petitioner after giving her one month salary in lieu of notice. This order was passed after it was found that three children in the village were not vaccinated by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the writ petition on the ground that the allegation of misconduct attributed to the petitioner was not made out on facts and that the petitioner was denied opportunity of hearing in the matter.
Reliance was placed upon a Government Order dated 07.03.2019, which lays down the procedure to be followed before dispensing the services of a contractual employee engaged in the Medical Health Service Department. The petitioner asserted in Paragraph Nos. 13 to 19 of the writ petition that the course specified in the Government Order dated 07.03.2019 has not been followed and that the reasonable opportunity to show cause has also been denied to the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Rajesh Bhardwaj and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, 2019(2) ADJ 830. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts of the case in Rajesh Bhardwaj (Supra) were entirely distinguishable inasmuch as the employer therein was a Company and it was observed that the Company did not answer the description of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
It was, therefore, in context that the Division Bench relied upon the concept that the contract of the person's service cannot be enforced. Relief in the writ petition for such reasons was denied even on merits as the case of the petitioner was not found to have any substance. It is submitted that in this case the employer is the District Health Society through its Chairman, Shahjahanpur, which answers the description of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, submitted that the writ petition was clearly maintainable. It is also submitted that once the procedure for disengaging a contractual employee was already laid down in the Government Order dated 07.03.2019 and it's violation was alleged in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition relying upon the judgment in Rajesh Bhardwaj (Supra). The review application is opposed by the State Counsel but it remains undisputed that the employer in the present case is District Health Society through its Chairman, Shahjahanpur of the State of U.P. It is also undisputed that being contractual staff (Nurse) the disengagement of writ petitioner had to be in accordance with the Government Order dated 07.03.2019.
Operative part
Since the allegation in the writ petition was with regard to violation of procedure laid down in the Government Order dated 07.03.2019, the writ petition did merit examination of petitioner's grievance on merits. We may also clarify that even though the contractual employee may not be entitled to safeguards which are otherwise available to the regular employee, yet in cases where the disengagement is based on allegation of misconduct where minimum opportunity of showing cause would have to be read once the employer is the State. In this case, the Government Order dated 07.03.2019 otherwise provided for such course to be adopted. The writ petition, therefore, was liable to have been entertained. In that view of the matter, the writ petition and the special appeal are allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed in special appeal are set aside. Since in the facts of the case, the petitioner's grievance have not been examined on merits, we dispose of the review application with a direction to the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in respect of allegations made against him, which led to petitioner's disengagement in service. The District Magistrate, Shajahanpur, will examine such grievance of the petitioner keeping in view the Government Order dated 07.03.2019 and shall pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 23.5.2025
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Judge as well as the order passed in special appeal are set aside
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 12.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 23 May 2025.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.