Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37039 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12651 of 2024 Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Gramya Vikas Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shrikant Tripathi,Kirti Kar Tripathi,Noor Alam Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P. K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided. 3. The facts of the case have already been noted in order dated 03.01.2025, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below: "1. Heard. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 20.11.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated. 3. A preliminary objection has been taken by Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal under the provisions of Minimum Features of Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme framed under Section 4(3) of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, in Schedule I which categorically provides for an appeal against the order passed by the District Programme Coordinator to be made before the State Commissioner (NREGS), Divisional Commissioner (NREGS) and State Grievance Redressal Officer. 4.However, it is not understood as to why three appellate authorities have been specified against the order passed by the District Programme Coordinator more particularly when District Programme Coordinator is the District Magistrate in each and every case, as stated by Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 5. Let instructions be taken in this regard by the learned Standing Counsel within a period of 3 days. 6. List this case in the next week as fresh. ": 4. In pursuance to the aforesaid order Shri P. K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has produced an office order dated 02.04.2025 by which the appellate authority against the order passed by District Programme Coordinator has been indicated as the Commissioner. 5. As the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2024 whereby his service has been terminated which order has been passed by the District Programme Coordinator as such considering the provisions of the Scheme as framed under paragraph 4(3) of the N.R.E.G.A. Schedule 1 it is apparent that the petitioner has remedy of filing of appeal before the Commissioner. 6. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the appeal was to be filed within a period of 30 days which time period has lapsed on account of pendency of present writ petition. 7. Considering he aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to submit an appeal against the order impugned to the Divisional Commissioner, Lucknow within 10 days from today. 8. In case the aforesaid appeal is filed alongwith certified copy of this order within the aforesaid time then appellate authority shall proceed to decide the said appeal on merit in accordance with law and relevant rules within a period of 6 weeks from the date of filing of the aforesaid appeal. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 J. K. Dinkar Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench