LexYOGESH KUMAR versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 890 : 2025 INSC 379 Yogesh Kumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (Civil Appeal No. 3823 of 2025) 18 March 2025 [B.R. Gavai* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in non-suiting the appellant and others on the ground that an appropriate civil action would mean the proceedings only before a Civil Court and not Writ Court. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.226 – Writ Court – Appropriate Civil action – Civil Court – Hyper-technical view – Payment of salary for service rendered – In an earlier SLP, petitioners including appellant had sought liberty to claim payment of salary for the period they have worked – While dismissing the SLP, the Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioners for any such relief in an appropriate civil action – Appellant and others made representation for payment of salary – Representation was rejected – Writ Petition – The appellant was non-suited, since the writ Court was not a civil Court – Correctness: Held: The High Court has non-suited the appellant and others on the ground that an appropriate civil action would mean the proceedings only before a Civil Court – While exercising the jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not expected to be hypertechnical – The position that the appellant and others had, in fact, put in eight years of service is not disputed by anyone – It is settled that even in cases where there are disputed questions of fact, where such disputes can be decided on the basis of an affidavit evidence and no elaborate evidence is required to be led, the High Court would be justified in granting a relief u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India – In any case, the State as well as the High Courts are expected to be model litigants – The High Court is not expected to take a hyper-technical view, when dealing with the case of payment of salary of the employees of the District * Author [2025] 3 S.C.R. 891 Yogesh Kumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Judiciary, who have actually put in eight years of service – In that view of the matter, the judgment passed by the Single Judge as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench are not at all sustainable in law – The respondents are directed to pay salary of the appellant herein and other similarly circumstances persons for the period during which they have actually worked in the District Court. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14] Case Law Cited ABL International Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of india Ltd. and Others (2004) 3 SCC 553; Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India v. Devi Ispat Limited and Others, 2010 INSC 462 : [2010] 9 SCR 417 : (2010) 11 SCC 186; Real Estate Agencies v. State of Goa and Others, 2012 INSC 387 : [2012] 8 SCR 278 : (2012) 12 SCC 170; Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2020 INSC 183 : [2020] 3 SCR 789 : (2020) 19 SCC 241; Unitech Limited and Others v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and Others, 2021 INSC 96 : [2021] 1 SCR 1064 : (2021) 16 SCC 35; National Company represented by its Managing Partner v. Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another, 2021 INSC 714 : [2021] 11 SCR 75 : (2021) 13 SCC 121; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and Others, 2020 INSC 603 : [2020] 13 SCR 571 : (2021) 19 SCC 706 – referred to. List of Acts Constitution of India. List of Keywords Service Law; Termination; Payment of salary for service rendered; Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction of the High Court; Writ Court; Question of fact; Hyper-technical view; Salary; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Model litigant; Appropriate civil action; Civil Court; Writ Jurisdiction. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3823 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 16.05.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in SAD No. 456 of 2019 892 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Dr. L.S. Chaudhary, Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Dr. Ajay Chaudhary, Ds Chaudhary, Vishesh Kumar, Ms. Vinita, Ms. Monika Chaudhary, Bharat Chaudhary, Ms. Vikram Singh, S. Parambir Singh. Advs. for the Respondents: Vishal Meghwal, Ms. Charu Mathur. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment B.R. Gavai, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appeal is taken up for hearing. 3. This appeal challenges the ju
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.