YOGESH KUMARversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

                 [2025] 3 S.C.R. 890 : 2025 INSC 379

                           Yogesh Kumar
                                  v.
               The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
                       (Civil Appeal No. 3823 of 2025)
                                18 March 2025
           [B.R. Gavai* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court was justified in non-suiting the appellant
       and others on the ground that an appropriate civil action would
       mean the proceedings only before a Civil Court and not Writ Court.

                                   Headnotes†
       Constitution of India – Art.226 – Writ Court – Appropriate Civil
       action – Civil Court – Hyper-technical view – Payment of salary
       for service rendered – In an earlier SLP, petitioners including
       appellant had sought liberty to claim payment of salary for
       the period they have worked – While dismissing the SLP, the
       Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioners for any such
       relief in an appropriate civil action – Appellant and others
       made representation for payment of salary – Representation
       was rejected – Writ Petition – The appellant was non-suited,
       since the writ Court was not a civil Court – Correctness:
       Held: The High Court has non-suited the appellant and others on the
       ground that an appropriate civil action would mean the proceedings
       only before a Civil Court – While exercising the jurisdiction
       u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not expected to
       be hypertechnical – The position that the appellant and others had,
       in fact, put in eight years of service is not disputed by anyone – It
       is settled that even in cases where there are disputed questions
       of fact, where such disputes can be decided on the basis of an
       affidavit evidence and no elaborate evidence is required to be led,
       the High Court would be justified in granting a relief u/Art.226 of
       the Constitution of India – In any case, the State as well as the
       High Courts are expected to be model litigants – The High Court
       is not expected to take a hyper-technical view, when dealing with
       the case of payment of salary of the employees of the District

* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                             891

        Yogesh Kumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others


     Judiciary, who have actually put in eight years of service – In that
     view of the matter, the judgment passed by the Single Judge as
     well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division
     Bench are not at all sustainable in law – The respondents are
     directed to pay salary of the appellant herein and other similarly
     circumstances persons for the period during which they have
     actually worked in the District Court. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]

                               Case Law Cited
     ABL International Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit Guarantee
     Corporation of india Ltd. and Others (2004) 3 SCC 553; Zonal
     Manager, Central Bank of India v. Devi Ispat Limited and Others,
     2010 INSC 462 : [2010] 9 SCR 417 : (2010) 11 SCC 186; Real
     Estate Agencies v. State of Goa and Others, 2012 INSC 387 :
     [2012] 8 SCR 278 : (2012) 12 SCC 170; Popatrao Vyankatrao
     Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2020 INSC 183 : [2020]
     3 SCR 789 : (2020) 19 SCC 241; Unitech Limited and Others v.
     Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and
     Others, 2021 INSC 96 : [2021] 1 SCR 1064 : (2021) 16 SCC 35;
     National Company represented by its Managing Partner v. Territory
     Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another,
     2021 INSC 714 : [2021] 11 SCR 75 : (2021) 13 SCC 121; State
     of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and Others, 2020 INSC
     603 : [2020] 13 SCR 571 : (2021) 19 SCC 706 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Constitution of India.

                              List of Keywords
     Service Law; Termination; Payment of salary for service rendered;
     Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction of the High Court; Writ Court; Question of
     fact; Hyper-technical view; Salary; Article 226 of the Constitution
     of India; Model litigant; Appropriate civil action; Civil Court; Writ
     Jurisdiction.

                              Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3823 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 16.05.2019 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in SAD No. 456 of 2019
892                                                        [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


                         Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Dr. L.S. Chaudhary, Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Dr. Ajay Chaudhary,
       Ds Chaudhary, Vishesh Kumar, Ms. Vinita, Ms. Monika Chaudhary,
       Bharat Chaudhary, Ms. Vikram Singh, S. Parambir Singh.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Vishal Meghwal, Ms. Charu Mathur.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

       B.R. Gavai, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     The appeal is taken up for hearing.
3.     This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 16th May 2019
       passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
       Allahabad (hereinafter, “High Court”) in Special Appeal Defective
       No.456 of 2019, vide which the appeal filed by the appellant herein
       challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the
       High Court dated 23rd May 2018 came to be dismissed.
4.     The facts, shorn of unnecessary details, giving rise to the present
       appeal are as under:
       4.1 The appellant, in response to the advertisement issued by
           the District Court, Saharanpur, had applied for the post of
           Stenographer. The appellant along with the other six persons,
           who were found suitable in the selection process were appointed
           to the post of Stenographer and assumed their charge on
           16th April 2002. However, subsequently it was found that the
           number of posts advertised was only three and four additional
           persons including the appellant herein were appointed in excess.
           They were, therefore, issued show cause notices, calling upon
           them to show cause as to why their appointment should not be
           terminated. On 28th February 2005, the District Judge passed
           an order terminating the services of the appellant herein and
           three others.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                           893

        Yogesh Kumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others


     4.2 Being aggrieved by the termination, the appellant herein and
         three others approached the learned Single Judge of the High
         Court, by way of Writ Petition No.43168 of 2005. Vide order dated
         17th May 2012, the said writ petition came to be dismissed. An
         intra court appeal being Special Appeal No.1180 of 2012 was
         also dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant herein
         approached this Court by way of a Special Leave Petition(C)
         No.26959 of 2012.
     4.3 This Court vide order dated 21st September 2012 dismissed the
         special leave petition filed by the appellant herein and others,
         in the following terms:-
                “Heard.
                We do not see any reason to interfere with the
                impugned order. The Special Leave Petition is
                dismissed.
                Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage
                submits that the petitioners were not paid salary for
                a period of 8 years even though they had worked as
                stenographers. He seeks liberty for the petitioners
                to claim payment of salary for the period they have
                worked. We make it clear that the dismissal of this
                special leave petition shall not prevent the petitioners
                from seeking any such relief in an appropriate civil
                action. We express no opinion as to the maintainability
                of any such action, or the tenability of the proposed
                claim.”
     4.4 It appears that thereafter the appellant and others made
         representation before the District Judge, Saharanpur for
         payment of their salary for the period during which they had
         worked. The said representation came to be rejected. Being
         aggrieved thereby, the appellant and others preferred Writ
         Petition No.26698 of 2015 before the learned Single Judge. The
         said petition was dismissed vide order dated 23rd May 2018.
         An intra court appeal being Special Appeal Defective No.456
         of 2019 was carried thereagainst, which was also dismissed.
         Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal by way of special
         leave has been filed. Vide order dated 28th February 2020,
         notice was issued by this Court.
894                                                           [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


5.     We have heard Dr. L.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant
       and Shri Vishal Meghwal for respondent No.2/High Court of Judicature
       at Allahabad.
6.     Dr. L.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that
       the learned Single Judge of the High Court as well as the Division
       Bench have taken a totally erroneous approach in rejecting the
       claim of the appellant. It is submitted that it is not disputed that the
       appellant and others had actually put in their services for eight years.
       It is also submitted that even the learned Single Judge of the High
       Court has accepted the position that the appellant and others had
       actually worked for eight years. However, the relief is denied to the
       appellant and others on the ground that this Court had observed
       that insofar as the payment of salary is concerned, the appellant and
       others were entitled to take recourse to an appropriate civil action.
       It is submitted that the approach of the learned Single Judge in
       non-suiting the appellant, since the writ court was not a civil court,
       is totally erroneous.
7.     Shri Vishal Meghwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the High
       Court, vehemently opposes this appeal. He submits that the appellant
       and others have lost up to this Court in the first round of litigation.
       It is submitted that the liberty that was granted by this Court was to
       take recourse to an appropriate civil action. Since the appellant and
       others rather than filing an appropriate action before a Civil Court
       had made a representation to the learned District Judge. The learned
       District Judge had rightly rejected the said claim. For the very same
       reasons, it is submitted that the High Court was justified in rejecting
       the petition as well as the appeal of the appellant herein and others.
8.     The facts in the present case are not in dispute. The appellant and
       others had applied in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the
       District Court, Saharanpur. However, it appears that though at the
       relevant time, there were only three regular vacancies, since the
       Fast Track Courts were functioning, the appellant and others were
       appointed to work in the Fast Track Courts. Subsequently, after the
       Fast Track Courts seized to function, the services of the appellant
       and others appeared to have been terminated.
9.     No doubt that the termination of the appellant has been upheld by
       the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court
       as well as by this Court in the first round. However, this Court has
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          895

         Yogesh Kumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others


     specifically clarified that the dismissal of the special leave petition
     shall not prevent the appellant and others from seeking any such
     relief in an appropriate civil action.
10. The High Court has non-suited the appellant and others on the
    ground that an appropriate civil action would mean the proceedings
    only before a Civil Court. The learned Single Judge has elaborated
    on as to what would amount to a ‘civil action’ by referring to the
    Advanced Law Lexicon.
11. No doubt that the learned Single Judge has correctly considered
    the definition of a ‘civil action’; but, in our view, while exercising the
    jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court
    is not expected to be hyper-technical.
12. The position that the appellant and others had, in fact, put in eight
    years of service is not disputed by anyone at all. Much before the
    judgment of the learned Single Judge was delivered on 23rd May 2018,
    this Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. and Another v.
    Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others1
    has held that even in case of disputed questions of fact, the High
    Court would be justified in entertaining a petition under Article 226
    of the Constitution of India. It has been held that even in cases
    where there are disputed questions of fact, where such disputes can
    be decided on the basis of an affidavit evidence and no elaborate
    evidence is required to be led, the High Court would be justified in
    granting a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. In any case, the State as well as the High Courts are expected to
    be model litigants. The High Court is not expected to take a hyper-
    technical view, when dealing with the case of payment of salary of
    the employees of the District Judiciary, who have actually put in
    eight years of service. The law laid down by this Court in the case
    of ABL International (supra) has been subsequently followed by this
    Court in the cases of Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India v. Devi
    Ispat Limited and Others2, Real Estate Agencies v. State of Goa
    and Others3, Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra



1   (2004) 3 SCC 553
2   2010 INSC 462 : (2010) 11 SCC 186
3   2012 INSC 387 : (2012) 12 SCC 170
896                                                       [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


       and Others4, Unitech Limited and Others v. Telangana State
       Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and Others5, National
       Company represented by its Managing Partner v. Territory
       Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another6
       and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and Others7.
14. In that view of the matter, we find that the judgment passed by the
    learned Single Judge as well as the impugned judgment and order
    passed by the learned Division Bench are not at all sustainable in law.
15. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment and order
    dated 16th May 2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
    and the judgment and order dated 23rd May 2018 passed by the
    learned Single Judge of the High Court are set aside.
16. The respondents are directed to pay the salary of the appellant herein
    and other similarly circumstances persons for the period during which
    they have actually worked in the District Court. The same shall be
    paid within a period of three months from today, along with interest
    at the rate of 6% per annum from the date on which the salaries
    ought to have been paid to them.
17. We further find that since the appellant herein and others who were
    made to run from one Court to another, specifically after 2012 i.e.
    the date on which the order was passed by this Court, the appellant
    would also be entitled to costs quantified at Rs.1 lakh, to be paid
    within three months from today.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




       Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan




4   2020 INSC 183 : (2020) 19 SCC 241
5   2021 INSC 96 : (2021) 16 SCC 35
6   2021 INSC 714 : (2021) 13 SCC 121
7   2020 INSC 603 : (2021) 19 SCC 706