Allahabad High Court reinstates man who was removed from service for maintaining live-in relationship outside of marriage

The Allahabad High Court recently set aside a dismissal order passed against a petitioner who was removed from service on the sole ground that he was maintaining a live-in relationship outside his marriage (Gore Lal Verma v. State of UP)..While setting aside the dismissal order, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia held that the petitioner should be reinstated without back pay wages from the date of dismissal till date. .The petitioner Gore Lal was dismissed from service in January 2020, solely on the ground that despite being married, he had maintained an illegal live-in relationship with another woman. He also has three children from the said relationship. It was recorded that the said conduct is against the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 and the Hindu Marriage Act.The petitioner preferred an appeal and a revision against the dismissal order, but both were dismissed..Before the High Court, counsel for petitioner submitted that the issue of dismissal from service only on account of second marriage or a live-in relationship had previously been decided by the Supreme Court. In the case of Anita Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, the Allahabad High Court had set aside the order dismissing a man from service on account of his having contracted a second marriage when his first wife was alive.This was then challenged before the Supreme Court in 2016, which had refused to interfere with the High Court's order. It was thus argued that the benefit of the judgment in the case of Anita Yadav should be extended to the present petitioner also..After considering the contentions of the parties, the Court said that the dismissal order ought to be set aside."I have perused the said order which indicates that sole ground for dismissal from service of the petitioner is his having live-in relationship outside marriage. Considering the fact as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Anita Yadav (supra), I do not see any reason as to why petitioner should not be extended same benefit extended to the petitioner Anita Yadav (supra) vide judgment dated 2.5.2016.".Accordingly, the dismissal order was set aside and the respondents were given liberty to pass fresh orders for imposition of minor penalty against the petitioner, as was held in Anita Yadav..[Read order]