Allahabad High Court

HEM LATEversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 27 September 2026
Bench: MANJU RANI CHAUHAN

Holding

The court held that the respondents must examine the petitioner’s grievance regarding contract renewal and honorarium payment, and issue appropriate orders within two months.

Summary

The petitioner, Hem Late, a school instructor appointed in 2013, sought a writ directing the Block Education Officer to allow her to join as Instructor and to compel the District Magistrate to renew her contract and pay honorarium for June-July 2025. She claimed her services were regularly renewed up to the 2024-25 session, but were not renewed for 2025-26 without notice, despite having taken approved medical and maternity leaves. The respondents argued that her low attendance percentages (31-49%) and the low student strength (<100) justified non‑renewal. The petitioner contested the attendance figures and cited a prior judgment (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24985 of 2017) supporting her position. The court, after hearing both sides, directed the District Magistrate/Chairman of the District Grievance Redressal Committee to examine her grievance and order payment of the honorarium within two months, and disposed of the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the non‑renewal of the petitioner’s contract without notice violates applicable service rules or her legal rights.
Whether the attendance percentages and low student strength cited by the respondents justify denial of contract renewal.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to honorarium for the period she served from 17‑06‑2025 to 31‑07‑2025.
Whether the District Magistrate/Grievance Redressal Committee must intervene and decide the petitioner’s grievance.

Subjects

contract renewal
attendance
honorarium
education service
writ petition
administrative law
service rules
medical leave
maternity leave

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 12553 of 2026

Hem Late
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Durga Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shailendra Singh, C.S.C.

Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

1. Rejoinder Affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit of respondent no. 3, filed today,
is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and
Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA and perused the record.

3. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition with a prayer to direct
respondent No. 3 to permit her to join on the post of Instructor in Upper Primary
School, Sanora, Vikas Khand Farah, District Mathura and for a further prayer to direct
respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Agra / Chairman, District Grievance Redressal
Committee, Agra to renew her appointment and also for a prayer to direct respondent
No. 3 to pay honorarium for the period from 17.06.2025 to 31.07.2025.

4. Placing the brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was appointed in the year 2013 pursuant to a Government Order dated
31.01.2013 and she worked and her services were renewed up to the session 2024-25.
Due to some medical exigency, the petitioner moved an application for medical leave
for the period 28.06.2024 to 14.09.2024 which was granted by the concerned District
Basic Education Officer, after which she joined her services on 01.10.2024. The
petitioner moved an application for maternity leave for the period from 19.12.2024 to
16.06.2025 which was granted and after the expiry of the said period, the petitioner
again joined her services on 17.06.2025. She was permitted to work up to 31.07.2025.
However, without any notice or information, her services for the session 2025-26 were
not renewed. The petitioner represented her grievance before the respondent authority
concerned and she also requested for the payment of honorarium for the period from
17.06.2025 to 31.07.2025. However, nothing has been done, therefore, the present writ
petition has been instituted.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that conduct of the respondents in
sitting tight over the matter despite the fact that the petitioner worked from 2013 till
2024-25. Her contract has not been renewed, that too without any notice to the
WRIA No. 12553 of 2026
2

petitioner, therefore, a direction may be issued to the authorities to look into the matter
of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-BSA submits that the Block Education Officer,
Mathura by letter dated 17.06.2026 informed the District Basic Education Officer that
out of 317 working days in the session 2022-23, the petitioner was present only on
124 days. Likewise, in the session 2023-24, she remained present on only 157
working days out of 319. In the session 2024-25, the petitioner was present only on 74
days out of 238 working days. Thus, it comes to 39.11%, 49.21% and 31.01%
respectively. The Block Education Officer further informed the respondent No. 3 that
the strength of the students in the petitioner's institution is below 100, thus the services
of the petitioner were not recommended for renewal. A letter has been written by the
District Basic Education Officer to the respondent no. 2 seeking opinion in the case
petitioner's case.

7. In reply to the above submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as
per the information given by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2, the attendance of
the petitioner in session 2022-23 is 50%, in session 2023-24 is 68% and in session
2024-25 is 59%, and the information given in paragraph No. 5 is contrary to the record
given by respondent No. 3. She further submits that in the Session 2024-25, from
28.06.2024 to 14.09.2024, the petitioner was on medical leave for bed rest on the
advice of the doctor during pregnancy period, which was approved by respondent No.
3 and thereafter on 01.10.2024, respondent No. 3 permitted the petitioner to resume
duty. He next contends that insofar as the strength of students being less than 100 is
concerned, this Court has already decided this issue in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
24985 of 2017 (Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others).

8. Leaned counsel for the respondents submits that the issue will be looked into by the
concerned District Magistrate.

9. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the
respondent no. 2 - District Magistrate, Mathura/ Chairman, District Grievance
Redressal Committee, Mathura to look into grievance of the petitioner regarding
renewal of her services and also payment of honorarium for the period 17.06.2025 to
31.07.2025 in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two
months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

10. No order as to costs.
September 28, 2026
DS
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
DIGAMBER SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…