HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10181 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 and perused the records. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the termination order dated 21.06.2025. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was engaged in the respondent-university in way back in year 2005 and thereafter, he kept on working till he has been dis-engaged orally. He submits that in fact the identically situated employees are allowed to work and the petitioner is being deprived of without issuing any show cause or passing any order of termination. He submits that dis-engagement of the petitioner 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 petitioner, wherein, the orders were passed and because of animosity, the services of the petitioner has been dispensed with without any reason in writing, thus, 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 petitioner is not being allowed to work. He has admitted that prior to disengaging the petitioner from the work, no show cause notice have been issued and no Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Neelesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Singh Dhamsha Deen .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agri. Edu. Deptt. Lko And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) order, in writing have been passed for stopping the services of the petitioner. In addition, he argued that there is long break, in continuity of the services of the petitioner. Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, the admitted position is that the petitioner worked in the respondent-university. Further the petitioner has 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 petitioner moreso, it has never been intimated to them. This practice is against the settled proposition of law. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.06.2025 is 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 petitioner, prior to passing, any order further. The order will be passed within period of six weeks and for the period of consideration, the petitioner shall be allowed to work. Needless to say that if any honorarium/remuneration is still withheld, the same shall be disbursed to the petitioner, forthwith. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is hereby disposed of. December 5, 2025 Mayank WRIA No. 10181 of 2025 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench