The Allahabad High Court has called for clarification from the Uttar Pradesh government regarding the use of the prefix “Honourable” in official communications, a title traditionally reserved for Ministers and sovereign functionaries. This issue arose during the hearing of Writ Petition (A) No. 13930 of 2024, where the court questioned the appropriateness of using the term for certain state officials like Secretaries.
The case, filed by Krishn Gopal Rathore against the State of Uttar Pradesh and others, deals primarily with an employment dispute but also opened a discussion on the formalities of official titles in state correspondence. The petition is being heard by Justice J.J. Munir, with Ansar Haider Rizvi and Zafar Abbas representing the petitioner, and the Chief Standing Counsel defending the state.
Background of the Case
Krishn Gopal Rathore, a Seasonal Collection Peon, approached the court after his exclusion from service retention, despite junior employees in the same classification being retained. Rathore contends that his termination was unjust and seeks legal redress for the unequal treatment he has faced. The petitioner has specifically raised concerns about the actions of the Collector of Etawah, under whose jurisdiction the employment decision was made. Rathore’s primary plea is for the court to intervene and rectify this apparent inconsistency in retaining employees, a matter crucial to his livelihood.
While the case is focused on this employment dispute, an additional issue arose during the court’s review of official communications, specifically the use of the term “Honourable” when addressing state officials like the Divisional Commissioner of Kanpur. This incidental matter led the court to question the formalities of how state officials are addressed.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Use of ‘Honourable’ for State Officials: The court sought to clarify whether the prefix “Honourable” can be used for state officials, such as Secretaries, in official correspondence. Typically, this title is reserved for Ministers and constitutional functionaries, and the court has questioned whether any formal protocol exists allowing its broader use.
2. Employment Retention Dispute: The main legal issue involves the petitioner’s claim that junior employees in his category have been retained in service while he has not. Rathore asserts that the decision to exclude him violates principles of fairness, and he has sought judicial intervention to rectify this disparity.
Court’s Observations
During the proceedings, the court took note of an official letter in which the Divisional Commissioner of Kanpur was referred to as “Honourable” by the Collector of Etawah. Justice J.J. Munir expressed concern over this usage and made the following observation:
“This Court is well aware that the word ‘Honourable’ is to be certainly prefixed in the case of Hon’ble Ministers and other sovereign functionaries, but we are not aware if the same holds good for Secretaries serving the State Government.”
The court has asked the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, to file an affidavit detailing any existing protocol that may justify the use of “Honourable” for state officials. At the same time, the court has ordered the Collector of Etawah to submit a personal affidavit explaining whether junior employees to the petitioner were indeed retained while Rathore was excluded from service.
Case Details
– Case Title: Krishn Gopal Rathore vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others
– Case Number: WRIT – A No. 13930 of 2024
– Bench: Justice J.J. Munir
– Petitioner’s Counsel: Ansar Haider Rizvi, Zafar Abbas
– Respondent’s Counsel: Chief Standing Counsel
– Next Hearing Date: 1 October 2024
