Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89530 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1427 of 2025 Petitioner :- Devendra Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Udit Chandra Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. In present case, following interim order was passed on 10.02.2025 :- "1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 & 2 and Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents no.3 & 4. 2. The order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the respondent no.4-District Basic Education Officer, Mathura is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. By the aforesaid orders the order of suspension passed against the petitioners were revoked and the petitioners were reinstated in service along-with all the back wages. While reinstating the petitioners following punishment has been awarded :- "ससंचययी प्रभभाव कके सभाथ वकेतन ववृदद्धि कभा ररोकनभा एक वकेतनववृदद्धि स्थभाययी रूप सके ररोकतके हहए दनलम्बन दतथथ सके सवकेतन बहभाल कके सभाथ बहभाल दकयभा जभातभा हहै। " The aforesaid punishment was awarded under the provisions of U.P. Basic Educational Staff Rules, 1973 hereinafter referred as "Rules 1973") read with U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred as "Rules 1999"). Apart from the same, petitioners was also transferred from to some other institution. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that on one hand, the order of suspension has been revoked and the petitioners were reinstated and on the other hand, major penalty has been imposed upon the petitioners as well as the petitioners were transferred from one place to another place. It is further argued that the aforesaid punishments were awarded by the respondent No.3 without assigning any reason and without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and in complete violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Rule 3 of Rules 1999 deals with the definition of "Major Penalty" and Rule 7 of Rules, 1999 provided the complete procedure before imposing the major penalty. Stopping the increment with cumulative effect falls under the definition of Major Penalty as per Rule 3 of Rules, 1999. From perusal of the record, it is clear that the major penalty has been imposed upon the petitioners without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 3 of Rules, 1999. Apart from the same, the petitioners were also transferred from one place to another place and the aforesaid order has been passed without assigning any reason. 6. The identical matters are coming everyday before this Court, in one of the petition being WRIT - A No. - 1476 of 2025 (Jagriti Pathak Vs. State Of U.P. and 4 Others), counter affidavit has also been called for by the State Government and interim protection was also granted. 7. In this view of the matter, list this matter along-with WRIT - A No. - 1476 of 2025. In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the respondents will file counter affidavit. 8. Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the respondent no.4-District Basic Education Officer, Mathura shall remain stayed." 2. In similar circumstances, this Court has passed following orders in Pankaj Jain Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others, 2025:AHC:64835 and Smt. Hemlata Sagar Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others, 2025:AHC:61137. 3. Learned counsel for B.S.A. has not able to take specific instruction whether there is any speaking order or not. 4. In aforesaid circumstances, impugned Office Memorandum is set aside and present writ petition is disposed of in terms of aforesaid orders. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 P. Pandey Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad