Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 23 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Shiv Harsh Kisan Post Graduate College; Respondents – Harish Chandra Bharti & others.
  • Background: In 2013 an advertisement invited applications for Class III posts (Routine Grade Clerk and Library Clerk). Respondents were selected. In 2014‑15 allegations of procedural irregularities arose. An Inquiry Committee submitted a report on 26‑04‑2015 finding the selection riddled with legal infirmities. On 19‑06‑2015 the Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, wrote to the Director stating clear violation of prescribed procedure and that the Government would cancel the appointments. The Director, by communication dated 20‑06‑2015, directed the Authorized Controller/District Magistrate, Basti, to cancel the appointments. A show‑cause notice was issued on 29‑06‑2015; respondents replied on 03‑07‑2015 denying involvement. An order dated 08‑07‑2015 cancelled their appointments.
  • Writ Petition: Writ Application No.46719 of 2015 was filed before the Allahabad High Court. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 19‑08‑2015, quashed the cancellation order, observing that (i) principles of natural justice must be complied with in termination cases, (ii) the competent authority could proceed afresh against the petitioners, and (iii) reinstatement would be possible only if a fresh inquiry concluded in their favour.
  • High Court Division Bench Orders: The Division Bench noted that the District Magistrate had undertaken an inquiry and directed further proceedings. It issued an order dated 07‑04‑2026 treating the original petitioners as suspended employees. Subsequent orders dated 23‑07‑2026 and 28‑08‑2026 directed reinstatement of the respondents and payment of subsistence allowance from the date of the Single Judge’s order, setting timelines for computation and payment of the allowance.
  • Supreme Court Appeal: The respondents filed Special Appeal Defective No.122 of 2026 challenging the High Court’s reinstatement, subsistence allowance, and back‑wages claims.

Court Reasoning

  • (a) Mischaracterisation of Status: The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench erred in treating the respondents as suspended employees. They had been terminated by the order dated 08‑07‑2015; subsistence allowance is payable only to suspended employees under the Civil Services Rules.
  • (b) Erroneous Grant of Subsistence Allowance: Since the respondents were not suspended, the direction to compute and pay subsistence allowance for the period of “suspension” was legally untenable.
  • (c) Inappropriateness of Interim Relief: The Court observed that the main relief sought was reinstatement and payment of salary/wages. Granting interim reinstatement and allowance while the appeal was pending for nearly ten months was not warranted; at most, the High Court could have ordered an expeditious hearing of the intra‑court appeal.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders dated 23‑07‑2026 and 20‑08‑2026.
  • The appeals are allowed, and the High Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the intra‑court appeal.
  • No order as to costs was made; any pending applications are consigned to the record.

Topics: Court Proceedings, Employment Law