The Supreme Court has ruled that the termination of four Class IV employees from the Uttar Pradesh district judiciary, eight years after their appointment, was unjustified, granting them relief after a prolonged 17-year legal struggle.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a ruling aimed at protecting the rights of public employees, the Supreme Court of India has held that the termination of four Class IV employees of the Uttar Pradesh district judiciary was unjustified. The decision, delivered on October 17, 2025, brings long-awaited relief to the workers who were dismissed eight years after their appointment because their selection exceeded the notified vacancies.
Background
In a major relief for four Class IV employees of the district judiciary in Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that their termination was unjustified, bringing an end to a prolonged legal battle that spanned nearly two decades.
The controversy dates back to 2008, when the services of Sanjay Kumar Mishra and three others were terminated, eight years after their initial appointment, because their appointments had exceeded the number of notified vacancies.
The employees had been appointed following a 2000 recruitment advertisement that listed 12 vacancies for Class IV posts in the district judgeship of Ambedkar Nagar.
Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court noted a crucial detail: The 2000 advertisement explicitly stated that the number of vacancies “may increase or decrease.”
This, the bench observed, indicated that the appointing authority intended to maintain a waitlist, enabling the filling of future vacancies that arose within a reasonable time, a practice permissible under the rules.
The court also pointed out that no fresh recruitment took place until 2008 (when 29 new vacancies were advertised), followed by another advertisement only in 2015 (for 2 vacancies). This timeline made it evident that many vacancies arose between 2000 and 2008, during which period the appellants had been serving.
ALSO READ: Bihar Elections 2025 | Paid Holiday for All Employees on Polling Day: ECI
Court’s Analysis
The appellants’ counsel relied on the precedent set in Naseem Ahmad and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011), which interpreted Rule 12 as allowing appointments to additional vacancies arising after the advertisement, provided they occur within a reasonable period and are filled from the existing waitlist.
The Supreme Court agreed that the present case mirrored the Naseem Ahmad ruling, and thus Rule 12 applied squarely to the appellants’ situation.
The bench emphasized that since the employees were lawfully appointed, worked continuously for eight years, and were even temporarily promoted in some cases, their termination was legally untenable.
ALSO READ: Justice Prathiba Singh Appointed As Chairman of WIPO Judges Board
The bench held:
“We cannot but find the termination to be unjustified.”
However, recognizing that the employees had been out of work for 17 years, and that two of them had already crossed 60 years of age, the Court crafted a balanced relief.
It directed that:
- Appellants who have not reached superannuation should be accommodated in existing Class IV vacancies in the Ambedkar Nagar judgeship.
- If no such vacancies exist, they should be placed in supernumerary posts, to be adjusted against future vacancies or to cease upon their retirement.
- The reinstated employees will not claim seniority, but the period they already served (8 years) will count toward pensionable service.
- The 17-year intervening period without employment will not count for any purpose — neither for salary, seniority, nor pension.
ALSO READ: Tribal Women Cannot Inherit Property Under Hindu Succession Act: Supreme Court
Case Title:
Sanjay Kumar Mishra & Ors Vs District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar (U.P.)
Special Leave Petition (C) No.14980 of 2024]
READ JUDGMENT
