HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 14276 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.S.Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite party no. 1, Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent(s) no. 2 & 3 and perused the records. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the oral termination order passed in the months of April,June and October,2025. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were engaged in the respondent-university in way back in year 1997 & 2004 and subsequently in year 2000 and thereafter, they kept on working till they have been dis-engaged orally. He submits that in fact the identically situated employees are allowed to work and the petitioners are being deprived of without issuing any show cause or passing any order of termination. He submits that dis-engagement of the petitioners is against the settled proposition of law, therefore, the orders impugned are unsustainable. He further submits that the oral dis-engagement is done because of writ petitions were instituted by the petitioners, wherein, the orders were passed and because of animosity, the services of the petitioners has been dispensed with without any reason in writing, thus, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Neelesh Kumar Yadav, Abhaya Kumar Yadav, Shobh Nath Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Singh Salikram And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Edu. Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) submission is that the impugned orders may be quashed. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that since the work as well as fund is not available in the University, thus, the petitioners are not being allowed to work. He has admitted that prior to disengaging the petitioners from the work, no show cause notice have been issued and no order, in writing have been passed for stopping the services of the petitioners. In addition, he argued that there is long break, in continuity of the services of the petitioners. Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, the admitted position is that the petitioners worked in the respondent- university. Further the petitioners have been dis-engaged and they are not being allowed to work in the University as the reason is shown in the statement of counsel for respondent-university that work and fund is not available. While examining upon the aforesaid submissions and discussions, it is apparent that no order for termination of services has been passed and even the cause and reason have not been shown that, why the work is not being taken from the petitioners moreso, it has never been intimated to them. This practice is against the settled proposition of law. Consequently, the impugned oral termination order passed in the months of April, June and October, 2025, are hereby quashed. The Vice-Chancellor, Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya, is directed to take decision afresh, while associating the stakeholders i.e. the petitioners, prior to passing, any order further. The order will be passed within period of six weeks and for the period of consideration, the petitioners shall be allowed to work. Needless to say that if any honorarium/remuneration is still withheld, the same shall be disbursed to the petitioners, forthwith. WRIA No. 14276 of 2025 2 With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is hereby disposed of. December 11, 2025 AKS WRIA No. 14276 of 2025 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench