Allahabad High Court
Ram Swaroop vs State Of U.P. And Ors. [Alongwith Civil ... on 19 April, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2002)3UPLBEC2072
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok Bhushan
JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard Sri R.K. Pandey appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and learned Standing Counsel. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and both the Counsel prayed that writ petitions be finally disposed of.
2. By means of first writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 12th August, 1999 passed by respondent No. 4 by which services of the petitioner, Ram Swaroop as class IV employee were terminated.
3. The case of the petitioner of first writ petition is that petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage basis as Class IV employee and by the order dated 31st March, 1997 he was regularised as Class IV employee in the scale of Rs. 750-940. After the aforesaid order, the petitioner was transferred on 31st May, 1997 and he was working continuously. It has been stated that suddenly by an order dated 12th August, 1999 his services were terminated. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition it has been stated that no notice was given to the petitioner before termination of his services.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that petitioner Ram Swaroop, died on 10th October, 1999 even before the writ petition could be filed. It was stated in the counter affidavit that appointment of the petitioner was irregular, which was made without proper procedure of appointment. It was stated that no application has been moved by the heirs of the petitioner and the writ petition has become infructuous and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. In the first writ petition subsequently an application was filed by wife of the petitioner, Smt. Rani Devi, along with the application for condonation of delay. This Court vide an order dated 1st April, 2000 has allowed the application and permitted the name of Smt. Rani Devi to be substituted in place of deceased-petitioner. In view of the aforesaid order, the writ petition is now being prosecuted by Smt. Rani Devi wife of late Sri Ram Swaroop deceased.
6. The second writ petition has been filed by Smt. Rani Devi praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner against Class IV post as dependent of deceased employee. It was stated in the writ petition that petitioner's husband was appointed on substantive basis on 31st March, 1997 and thereafter was working. It was stated that his services were terminated on 12th August, 1999. Against the said order dated 12th August, 1999 her late husband filed Writ Petition No. 45157 of 1999 in which interim order was granted by this Court on 26th October, 1999. The husband of the petitioner died on 10th October, 1999 and thereafter an application was given by the petitioner for giving appointment as dependent of deceased employee. The petitioner has referred to the letter of Deputy Director, Agriculture dated 21st January, 2000 to the District Agriculture Officer for taking necessary steps.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed in the second writ petition in which it has been stated that petitioner's claim for giving appointment has been forwarded in Additional Director Agriculture vide his letter dated 28th April, 2000 to the State Government.
8. I have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the facts as stated in both the writ petitions, it is clear that claim of Smt. Rani Devi, the petitioner in second writ petition, in dependent on the result of first writ petition. In the first writ petition Ram Swaroop is dead and his wife is prosecuting the writ petition in so far as challenge to the order dated 12th August, 1999 is concerned. From Annexure-1 to the first writ petition, it is clear that petitioner, who was referred to as daily wage worker, has been given appointment on vacant Class-IV post in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940. The petitioner's case is that he continued thereafter and suddenly by the order dated 12th August, 1999 his services were terminated.
9. The Counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions. Firstly he has submitted that the said order dated 12th August, 1999 has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice since before passing the said order no notice was issued. The second submission of Counsel for the petitioner is that the said order has been passed under the dictates of the higher authorities.
10. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, it has clearly been stated that the said order has been passed without notice. In the counter affidavit no reply has been given to the said averment Further from the impugned order dated 12th August, 1999 it does not appear that before passing the said order any notice was issued. The Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment reported on (1994) 2 UPLBEC 1208; Majhaboor Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr. In the aforesaid case this Court has laid down that the services of an ad-hoc employee who has been regularised cannot be terminated unless he has been given opportunity. The aforesaid case do help the contention raised by the petitioner. The allegation of the petitioner that the order dated 12th August, 1999 has been passed without notice remains unrebutted and in view of the above, the said order cannot be sustained on the ground that the same was passed in violation of principle of natural justice.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 12th August, 1999 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. However, this order will not preclude the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law.
12. With regard to claim of Smt. Rani Devi for appointment on compassionate ground, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that letter has been sent by Assistant Director Agriculture on 28th April, 2000 to the State Government. Copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit. In view of the fact that the order dated 12th August, 1999 has been quashed, the case of Smt. Rani Devi is entitled to be considered in accordance with the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. In view of the fact that case of the petitioner, Smt. Rani Devi, has already been recommended by Additional Director Agriculture to the State Government, It is appropriate that the State Government may consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The matter having been referred on 20th October, 2000 and is pending till date, the State Government may consider and decide the claim of petitioner, Smt. Rani Devi, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not examined on merit the entitlement of the petitioner and it is for the State Government to take decision in accordance with law.
13. With the aforesaid directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of.