Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43116 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6481 of 2025 Petitioner :- Roli Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Panchayati Raj Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Upadhyay,Abhishek Awasthi,Manav Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court be kept on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 6 and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 7. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents states that he does not intend to file a counter affidavit and prays that the matter may be heard and decided finally. 4. Accordingly, the aforesaid statement is recorded and matter is being decided finally. 5. Under challenge is the order dated 28.02.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby the services of the petitioner who was working on the post of Panchayat Sahayak-cum-Data Entry Operator have been terminated. 6. The specific case of the petitioner is that the conditions of service of Panchayat Sahayak are governed by the Government order dated 25.07.2021, copy of which is annexure 10 to the writ petition. Clause 16 of the said Government order categorically provides that although the services of a Panchayat Sahayak-cum- Data Entry Operator can be dispensed with at any time yet either one month notice or a notice pay would have to be mandatorily given. 7. Placing reliance on the averments contained in paragraph 7 of the supplementary affidavit dated 14.07.2025, contention is that neither the one month notice pay nor a month's notice had been given by the competent authority prior to passing of the impugned termination order and consequently, the termination order would be patently vitiated having been passed in violation of Clause 16 of the Government order dated 25.07.2021. 8. In the supplementary affidavit filed today, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that one month's honorarium has been credited in the account on the petitioner on 24.07.2025 (wrongly typed as 24.07.2021) which fact is also admitted by Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 on the basis of instructions. 9. Considering the aforesaid, it is thus apparent that at the time of passing of the impugned termination order dated 28.02.2025 neither a month's notice nor notice pay had been extended to the petitioner in terms of the Government order dated 25.07.2021 which thus vitiates the order impugned. Merely because the respondents have thereafter woken up to the fact of they having not complied with the Government order which provides so and having credited the said amount in the account of the petitioner in July, 2025 cannot resile from the admitted fact of there being patent violation of the Government order dated 25.07.2021. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 28.02.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition is set aside. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the payment of arrears of salary has also not been paid to the petitioner. 12. The respondents shall ensure the payment of honorarium to the petitioner in accordance with law in case the same has not been paid. 13. However, it would be open for the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 14. Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 and learned Standing counsel shall inform about this order to the authorities without waiting for certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Pachhere/- Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench