30 years of ‘state apathy’: Supreme Court fines UP Rs 1 lakh over man’s hill cadre battle for disabled son

“This is in no way, shape, or form anything other than apathy on the part of the state. This becomes clearer if the issue is looked at in terms of absolute numbers. The person was appointed with effect from June 1997, and today we are in April 2026. Only now will he get something that he had opted for right from the start,” the Supreme Court said on April 22.

The bench ordered award costs of Rs 1 lakh to the petitioner, which will be paid by the state of Uttar Pradesh.

A posting and decades of legal battle for reallocation

The petitioner has cleared the Combined Lower Subordinate Service Examinations in 1995, scoring high marks and opting for a “hill region” posting. However, his appointment was initially rejected because he provided his B.Ed marksheet during his interview rather than with the application form.

Aggrieved by this, the petitioner moved the Allahabad High Court in 1997, which allowed his plea in 2004. Considering that he hailed from a remote area, the court observed that a “hyper technical” view should not be adopted and, as such, allowed the appellant to be appointed from the same date as the other candidates, along with consequential benefits except for arrears and salary.

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against these findings, but the same came to be dismissed by order in 2009. He was finally appointed by the Director (Basic) Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, to the position of Sub Deputy Inspector of Schools, notionally from June 11, 1997.

He joined the said service in July 2011 and submitted representations to the authorities in May, July, and October 2012, respectively, requesting that he be granted the ‘hill cadre’ as originally requested. A further ground for making such an application was that his son was cognitively disabled.

He has been made to run from pillar to post: Supreme Court

• We must record a deep sense of anguish that troubled us in dealing with this matter.
• Once the high court had, in 2004, cleared the way for his appointment, he should have at least been appointed, subject to the outcome of the appeal, if any, that would have been filed by the state. That did not happen.
• The plea was dismissed in 2009, yet a formal appointment came only in 2011.
• From 2011 onwards, he has been made to run from pillar to post to fulfil the needs/preferences of being posted in his home state.
• Even if we exclude the initial few years till his appointment was confirmed by the high court in the first petition, which was in February 2004, even from that point onwards, 22 years have passed.
• We award costs to the petitioner, to be paid by the respondent state of Uttar Pradesh, to the tune of Rs 1 lakh.
• It is difficult to think that there are not many other cases where, on account of the long pendency of service disputes, the party in question would be approaching superannuation, as the case may also be here.
• As such, it is requested that the learned Chief Justice of the high court ascertain the number of such cases long pending and endeavour to have them decided expeditiously, possibly by distributing them across benches, which would ensure that they are taken up and decided within a comparatively shorter span of time.

‘UP chief secretary facilitate reallocation of petitioner’

• The cadre allocation process is governed by three criteria: option, domicile, and inclusion of junior-most personnel in reverse order of seniority.
• The petitioner had been granted a notional appointment from 11th June 1997 and has also submitted, in various representations, that he is a resident of present-day Uttarakhand.
  On both these counts, the request for reallocation of cadre ought to have been acceded to, if at all it can be called as such.
• There is another reason that would justify the appellant being sent to the Uttarakhand State Services.
• His son has been declared to be cognitively challenged with little or no scope for improvement/betterment in his condition.
• The medical certificate testifying to such a position has been placed on record.
• The above extracted exceptions to the allocation policy have an exception for persons with ‘mental illness’, which includes family members also.

• When such an exception applies, the allocation to be made is as per the option exercised by the employee.
• On this count also, the petitioner’s appointment in the hill cadre taken from the original date should have been translated into an appointment with the successor state.
• The chief secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh, is directed to facilitate the reallocation of the petitioner to the State of Uttarakhand.

Transfer, change in cadre distinct

The Supreme Court noted that we do not agree with the determination made by the high court, and the first reason of law is that the distinction between a transfer and a change in cadre is plain and does not admit confusion. It added that the two operate in entirely different domains and carry different legal and administrative consequences.

“A transfer refers to a change in the place of posting of an employee within the same cadre or service. The individual continues to belong to the same service structure, governed by the same rules, with no impact on seniority or substantive status. It is an incident of service, routinely exercised by the administration for functional, administrative, or public interest considerations,” the court observed.

It continued that essentially, only the location or assignment changes, not the identity of the service to which the employee belongs.

The order said, a change in cadre, by contrast, involves a shift from one cadre to another and, therefore, alters the very framework within which the employee’s service is regulated. It is not a mere relocation but a structural change that may affect seniority, promotional avenues, and applicable service conditions, it added.