Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78260 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5822 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Shukla Respondent :- High Court Of Judicature Of Allahabad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Mishra Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Head Sri Pramod Kumar Shukla, Petitioner-in-person and Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner-in-person a Stenographer at Kanpur Nagar Judgeship, got retired after working for about more than four decades on 30.11.2023 and was given re-appointment in terms of relevant circular on 29.10.2024. 3. According to the petitioner-in-person, after working for only 10 days, he was communicated by the District Judge that his services are not required and thereafter an order dated 7.11.2024 was passed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, though there is no specific reference of petitioner-in-person therein but in last paragraph of it, there is a reference of a reappointment of Stenographer Grade-III, that his re-appointment was cancelled. 4. Petitioner-in-person has made various arguments. He has alleged malafides, against the then District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, arrayed as respondent no.2, by name as well as against a lady employee of the Judgeship that impugned order was passed under the influence of said employee and a reference to her was also made in Prayer No.3, though she is not arrayed as a party in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no clear vacancy, therefore, re-appointment of the petitioner was cancelled, though she fairly submitted that such ground is not specifically mentioned in the impugned order. She denied any malafide. She further submitted that in case there is a vacancy in future and petitioner remain within zone of consideration, he will be considered for reappointment. 6. There is no quarrel to the position of law that re-appointment is not a right of any retired employee. It is only for a purpose to facilitate the work as well as to utilize long experience of a retired employee. 7. The Court is not putting any discredit to the four decades services of the petitioner and probably he may be a good candidate for re-appointment. 8. The allegations of malafide are vague and made on assumptions, therefore, same cannot be considered. So far as allegations of malafide against a female employee is concerned, since she is not a party in this writ petition, therefore, Court is not considering any submissions qua to her. (See State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, Federation of Railways Officer Association Vs. Union of India, AIR 2003, SC 1244). 9. As referred above, there is no specific reason assigned in the impugned order, though it is not mandatorily required. However, once an order is passed, whereby re-appointment of petitioner was set-aside, a reason to it must be communicated. 10. The petitioner appearing in person has declared his age about 62 years therefore, he has still 3 years to work if re-appointment. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, Court is of the view that as and when any vacancy is available, though according to the petitioner- in-person vacancy is still available, the petitioner may be called for consideration for re-appointment. 12. As referred above, petitioner-in-person has worked for 10 days on re-appointment, however, according to him salary for the said period was not paid, which may be around 35-45 thousand, therefore, it is directed that petitioner be paid salary for the said period within a short period, after due verification. 13. In view of above discussion, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad