HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 848 of 2025 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. The instant intra-court appeal is directed against an order dated 6.8.2025, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ - A No. 11210 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the resolution/order dated 30.12.2017, passed by Nagar Palika Parishad, Barua, Jhansi, terminating the services of employees engaged in pursuance of its previous resolution dated 29.05.2017. The case of the petitioner was that he was initially appointed as daily wager on 5.5.2014 and by a subsequent order dated 31.5.2017, after holding that his services as a daily wager was satisfactory, he was appointed on a fixed salary w.e.f. 1.6.2017. The said appointment was made on basis of resolution of the Board of Nagar Palika Parishad dated 29.05.2017. The respondents, vide resolution dated 30.12.2017, decided to dispense with services of the petitioner as he remained absent. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was unwell and he duly filed application from time to time for sanction of medical leave. It was also duly sanctioned. The petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity of Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Jagdish Narayan Gupta, Karan Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Om Prakash Singh Hemant Chaudhary .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) hearing before terminating his services, otherwise he would have convinced the respondents that his absence was not deliberate and the leave was duly sanctioned. 4. The learned Single Judge has considered the leave application on which there is endorsement that the application has been allowed. The learned Single Judge has observed that there is no stamp underneath the endorsement, nor mention of the designation of the officer who purportedly signed it. It has also been observed that in normal circumstances, there should have been a separate order to sanction medical leave and on basis of the aforesaid two reasons, learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the document is not genuine. 5. It is not disputed before us that although the petitioner has relied on the said document, no counter affidavit was filed by the Nagar Palika Parishad, disputing its correctness, except for taking oral stand that the application is not available in the record of Nagar Palika. 6. In such circumstances, we are unable to uphold the finding that the document is not genuine. 7. Learned counsel for Nagar Palika Parishad has invited our attention towards an order dated 14.7.2025, passed in previous writ petition of the petitioner bearing number 4748 of 2018, whereby his previous writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands. 8. We have perused the said order. Although the said writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and a cost was also imposed, but at the same time, the prayer of the petitioner to file a fresh petition with better particulars was granted. Therefore, the dismissal of the first writ petition did not preclude the petitioner from filing the subsequent writ petition, SPLA No. 848 of 2025 2 giving rise to the instant appeal. 9. Learned Single Judge has also observed that petitioner was put to notice of his absence from 01.012.2017 by notice dated 14.12.2017, which he refused to accept. There is no denial to the endorsement of refusal on said notice. This finding is based on the affidavits filed in the previous writ petition. The petitioner denied having received the notice and also questioned the action of Nagar Palika in not sending the notice by registered post. Upon such denial by the petitioner, the burden shifted on the Nagar Palika to prove the service and also explain why notice was not sent by registered post, which it failed. 10. As we find that there is no counter affidavit on record to dispute the authenticity of the document on which reliance has been placed by the appellant in support of the submission that during the period of absence, leave was duly sanctioned, therefore, we set aside the order of learned Single Judge and remit the matter back for deciding the writ petition afresh, granting liberty to Nagar Palika Parishad to file counter affidavit within four weeks. 11. In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. September 16, 2025 Jaideep/- SPLA No. 848 of 2025 3 (Arun Kumar,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad