HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 6784 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5, Mr. Saharsh Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash internal communication/order, if any, restraining the petitioners the petitioners to discharge their duty/work after summoning the original; b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioners to resume their duties forthwith with all consequential benefits; c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the petitioners back wages for the entire period of unlawful discontinuance, i.e., from 15.05.2025 till the actual date of resumption of work, along with interest @ 18% per annum; d) To award the cost of this petition in favour of the petitioners; e) To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice." It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were engaged in the respondent-university in way back in year 1995 and 2001 and thereafter, they kept on working till they have been dis-engaged orally. He Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sachin Shukla, Anjali Divedi, Satyanshu Ojha Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Singh Sitapati And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Agri. Edu. And Research Lko And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 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, 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 oral termination order dated 15.05.2025 is hereby quashed. The Vice-Chancellor, Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Faizabad 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 WRIA No. 6784 of 2025 2 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. Needless to say that while deciding the claim of the petitioners, the competent authority shall also go through the judgment and order rendered in the case of Shripal and Another Versus Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is hereby disposed of. December 5, 2025 Mayank WRIA No. 6784 of 2025 3 (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