Allahabad High Court
SANTOSH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA and ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. and OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is disposed, with the observation that the petitioners' services will be protected only if they have taken advantage of the interim order; otherwise, no protection is granted.
Summary
Santosh Kumar Srivastava and another filed a writ petition in 1998 challenging orders dated 7 January 1998 and 25 September 1997 that denied them employee status and stopped their salary under the Uttar Pradesh State University Act, 1973. The High Court initially stayed the salary stoppage and allowed time for filing affidavits. The petition was repeatedly dismissed for want of prosecution in 2010, 2016 and restored in 2014 and 2023. On a priority hearing in February 2026, the court noted the petitioners' prolonged inactivity and, while not granting relief, observed that if they had availed the interim order their services should be protected, otherwise not. The petition was finally disposed with this observation.
Issues considered
- Whether the orders denying employee status and stopping salary of the petitioners under the Uttar Pradesh State University Act, 1973 can be quashed.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to protection of service despite the long delay and alleged lack of prosecution.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh State University Act, 1973
Subjects
- writ petition
- service protection
- employment
- Uttar Pradesh State University Act
- procedural delay
- want of prosecution
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 2217 of 1998
Santosh Kumar Srivastava And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Khare, S.C. Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : SC
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. This writ petition is pending for last 28 years.
2. Sri A.K.Mishra, learned Standing Counsel submits that this writ
petition was filed for quashing the impugned order dated 7.1.1998,
passed by respondent no.2, i.e. Director of Higher Education,
Allahabad and order dated 25.9.1997, passed by respondent no.4,
i.e. Regional Higher Education Officer, Gorakhpur.
3. That Court has passed following order on 14.1.2026:
"1. This writ petition is of the year 1998 and this matter is
placed for hearing under the heading of "Oldest pending
cases in the High Court, for priority hearing", in a
supplementary list, however, learned advocates for rival
parties are not present probably on a ground that this list is
published belatedly, therefore, let this matter come up for
final hearing in the week commencing 9th February, 2026.
2. On the next date, this case will be heard finally. No
adjournment will be granted to learned advocates for
rival parties."
4. Despite aforesaid order, none is present on behalf of
petitioner.
5. By the order dated 25.9.1997, passed by respondent no.4, i.e.
Regional Higher Education Officer, Gorakhpur. petitioners were not
considered as employees under Uttar Pradesh State University Act,
1973, therefore their salary was denied and by the earlier impugned
WRIA No. 2217 of 1998
2
order dated 7.1.1998, petitioners salary was stopped and an inquiry
was initiated.
6. According to order sheet, this Court has granted following interim
order on 29.1.1998:
“The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondent nos.1 to 5 prays for and is granted four weeks'
time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may
be filed within a week thereafter.
The petitioner is directed to serve the respondent no.6 by
registered post-AD who may also file counter affidavit
within the aforesaid period.
List this writ petition for admission in the week commencing
30th March, 1998.
In view of the contentions made by the petitioners that their
appointments were made in April, 1996 and they were
being paid salary applying the deeming provision, the
impugned order on the sole ground of the adjustment of a
candidate by compassionate appointment recommended
on 14.8.1997 after more than one year of petitioners'
appointment, shows prima facie case of the petitioners and
therefore the operation of the impugned order dated
7.1.1998 (annexure-21 to the writ petition) will remain
stayed till further orders.”
7. Subsequently, this writ petition was dismissed for want of
prosecution vide order dated 14.9.2010 and it was restored vide order
dated 9.4.2014. Subsequently, again it was dismissed for want of
prosecution vide order dated 8.7.2016 and was restored vide an
order dated 18.9.2023, therefore Court is not aware as to whether
petitioner is continuously working and has taken advantage of interim
order dated 29.1.1998. Otherwise also, petitioner no.1 has declared
his age about 30 years when this writ petition was filed in the year
1998, therefore he must be around 58 years.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with
an observation that in case petitioners have taken advantage of
above referred interim order, their services be protected since they
are at the fag end of their service. However, in case petitioners have
not regularly worked or have not taken advantage of aforesaid interim
order, their services will not be protected.
WRIA No. 2217 of 1998
3
9. Copy of this order be sent to the petitioners at their given
addresses.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
May 12, 2026
SB
Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…