Termination of Class IV Staff Unjustified—Reinstatement or Minimum Pension Ordered | SC

Case Details: Sanjay Kumar Mishra vs. District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar (U.P.) - [2025] 179 taxmann.com 571 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• B. R. Gavai, CJI & K. Vinod Chandran, J.
• M.C. Dhingra, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Dhingra, AOR, Shashank Singh, Deepak Rana, Raghvendra Shukla, Joginder Kumar & Prabhat Pichauri, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Yashvardhan, Adv. & Apoorv Shukla, AOR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellants were Class IV appointees in the District Judgeship of Ambedkar Nagar. They were selected pursuant to an advertisement showing 12 vacancies with a stipulation that the number of posts could increase or decrease. In the select list, appellants appeared at serial numbers within the general, backward class, and SC/ST categories.

They were appointed in 2001, and two of them received temporary promotions in the Ministerial Cadre. Their services were terminated on 05.05.2008, about eight years later, on the ground that six appointments were made in excess of advertised vacancies, four of which were appellants, and they remained out of employment thereafter.

The Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad upheld termination on the premise that appointments were made beyond the number of vacancies advertised. The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s view. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the Supreme Court.

It was noted that since advertisement specifically indicated that there could be an increase or decrease of vacancies, which as on the date of advertisement was also stated as twelve posts, the said recital in advertisement would clearly indicate that the Appointing Authority intended that a wait list be maintained to fill up vacancies arising in excess of those notified, which was permissible as per rules.

Further, it was noted that since the next advertisement was only in 2008 and then in 2015, definitely vacancies arose within the said period, and this was the reason why appellants were appointed on various dates subsequent to appointment to twelve vacancies advertised. Thus, termination was unjustified.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held that since the appellants had been out of employment for almost 17 years, the appellants, if not having completed the age of superannuation, were to be accommodated in existing vacancies of Class IV in the District Judgeship of Ambedkar Nagar. Further, if any of the appellants had crossed the age of superannuation, they would be entitled to a minimum pension, notwithstanding the fact that they had completed only 8 years in employment and were not entitled to an appointment as of now.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Naseem Ahmad and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh
• Another Naseem Ahmad v. State of U.P. [2011] 12 taxmann.com 516 (SC)/(2011) 2 SCC 734 (para 6) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Naseem Ahmad v. State of U.P. [2011] 12 taxmann.com 516 (SC) (para 4).