The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has dismissed a special appeal filed by a third-party employee, holding that a person who is not directly affected by a service dispute cannot challenge a judgment between an employer and another employee.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh ruled that locus standi in service matters must be strictly construed, and only a “person aggrieved” with demonstrable legal injury can maintain an appeal.
The case arose after a Single Judge set aside the termination of an employee of King George’s Medical University (KGMU) and ordered reinstatement. The appellant, another employee, sought to challenge this order, claiming that the reinstatement would affect his seniority and promotional prospects.
The Court, however, rejected this contention, noting that the appellant failed to establish any direct or proximate legal injury arising from the impugned judgment. The Court held that in the absence of any real injury, the appellant cannot be treated as an aggrieved person. It ruled:
“unless a person is impacted by direct adverse consequences which may either arise out of promotion or seniority or matters of like nature which may impact an employee or class of employees, till then, it may not allow any leverage to a particular employee or third party to assail an order passed affecting the another employee relating to his appointment and dismissal, which is per-se a matter purely between the employee and his employer.”
Emphasising the distinction between actual legal harm and speculative impact, the Bench observed that mere chances of promotion or indirect effects do not confer locus standi.
The Court also clarified that service disputes are fundamentally private disputes between employer and employee, and cannot be opened up to third-party challenges unless there is a clear, direct infringement of legal rights. The Bench highlighted that the appellant was neither a party to the original writ proceedings nor directly affected in terms of seniority or immediate service consequences. His role as a complainant did not elevate him to the status of an aggrieved person with a right to appeal.
While dismissing the appeal as not maintainable, the Court left open the possibility for the employer (KGMU) to independently challenge the Single Judge’s order, if it so chooses.
Appearances
Appellant- Hari Prasad Gupta, Bhanu Pratap Singh, Durgesh Kumar Verma, Sandeep Kumar Ojha
Respondents- Srideep Chatterjee, Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, C.S.C., Shubham Tripathi
