Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136926 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43235 of 2016 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Upadhyay Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Akash Mani Tripathi,Prakash Narayan Tirpathi,Rajnish Kumar Srivastava,Sr. Advocate,Vinay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gautam Baghel,Ratnakar Upadhyay Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard Sri Aditya Singh holding brief of Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Ashwarya Pandey holding brief of Sri Ratnakar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the 7th respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. In the present case, one post of stenographer was approved in the 7th respondent - Institution vide order dated 06.11.1985 and the management intended to fill up the said post, duly advertised and followed procedure. In response to the same, the petitioner has appeared and selected and accordingly, he was appointed as stenographer on 05.01.1986. The said appointment was approved by the competent authority vide order dated 22.01.1986. 3. Based on certain questions raised before the Legislative Assembly, the appointment of the petitioner was interdicted after 30 years and accordingly, the petitioner's services were terminated vide order dated 10.06.2016, 13.06.2016 followed by termination order dated 27.06.2016. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 5. Considering the material on record, this Court has passed the following orders on 26.09.2016. "The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the service of the petitioner has been terminated after 30 years pursuant to the impugned order dated 10.6.2016, which has been followed by consequential orders dated 13.6.2016 and 27.6.2016 on the ground that the petitioner could not have been appointed because he was son of the principal of the institution at that point in time. It has been submitted that another son of the principal, namely, Dr. Vijay Kumar Upadhyay, who was appointed as a lecturer in the institution and his services were also terminated by common termination order, filed Writ A No. 35840 of 2016 before Division Bench of this Court and by order dated 29.8.2016, the operation of the impugned orders have been stayed and a direction has been issued that he shall be permitted to continue as lecturer in the institution on the ground that such action was not prima facie permissible after 30 years of service. It has been submitted that the case of the petitioner stands on identical footing as that of Dr. Vijay Kumar Upadhyay, who has obtained interim relief from a Division Bench of this Court, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to similar relief. The matter requires consideration. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 and Sri Gautam Baghel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 3. Issue notice to respondent no. 7 returnable by 15.12.2016. Steps to serve the respondent no. 7 should be taken within one week. List this case on 15.12.2016. By the next date, the respondents shall file their respective counter affidavits. Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the orders dated 10.6.2016, 13.6.2016 and 27.6.2016 passed by respondents 2, 4 and 6 respectively shall remain stayed and on the strength of the impugned orders the petitioner shall not be stopped from continuing as stenographer in the institution concerned." 6. Consequent upon, the petitioner was continued in service and salaries were also released. While pending the writ petition, the petitioner got retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2025. 7. In view of the said circumstances and considering the length of service and also interim order passed by this Court on 26.09.2016, as the petitioner has continued from 1986 to 2025, at this juncture, this Court is not inclined to go into merits of the case and decide validity of the appointment of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned orders 10.06.2016, 13.06.2016 and 27.06.2016 passed by respondent nos.2, 4, and 7, respectively are set aside. The respondents are directed to release all post retiremental dues to the petitioner. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 rkg (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad