Allahabad High Court
Smt. Geeta Devi vs Uma Shanker Yadav And Others on 28 July, 2010
Bench: Ferdino Inacio Rebello, Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
AFR
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 681 of 2010
Petitioner :- Smt. Geeta Devi
Respondent :- Uma Shanker Yadav And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Ajay Bhanot,Saket Jaiswal
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Nand Lal Yadav,Prem Chandra
Hon'ble Ferdino Inacio Rebello,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant Sri Ajay Bhanot and learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4 the defect as pointed out by the office report stands waived. Office to give regular number to the appeal.
The appellant is the Village Pradhan of Village-Murwal Tehsil-Baberu District Banda and she prays that the interim order dated 18.06.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition giving rise to this appeal be set aside as the same does not record any reason and amounts to granting final relief to the respondent no. 1 to continue to hold the post of Village Employment Worker (Gram Rojgar Sevak) even beyond the period of the contract as stipulated under the scheme dated 23rd of November, 2007.
The facts in short are that the respondent no. 1-Uma Shanker Yadav was engaged as Village Employment Worker (Gram Rojgar Sevak) in the year 2006. The engagement, according to the respondent no. 1, continued till the appellant on her own proceeded to take action against the respondent no. 1-writ petitioner and terminated his services vide order dated 25th of May, 2010. The said order was assailed in the writ petition, giving rise to the present appeal, on the ground that it was an arbitrary exercise of power and that the Gram Pradhan had done it on her own without there being any resolution of the Gaon Sabha, who is the employer in the present case. The learned Single Judge stayed the operation of the said order passed by the appellant and thus aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
Sri Ajay Bhanot has taken us extensively through the Government Order dated 23rd of November, 2007 and has invited our attention to Clause-7 of the said scheme which provides for the tenure of engagement of such Gram Sevaks. The same is quoted below:-
"xzke iapk;r vius izLrko ds ek/;e ls mDr izdkj ls p;fur O;fDr dh lsok;sa ,d o"kZ ;k jkstxkj xkjUVh ;kstuk ykxw jgus rd tks Hkh igys gks] dh lafonk ij izkIr dj ldsxhA xzke iapk;r dh vksj ls xzke iz/kku }kjk ,oa lafonk ij j[ks tkus okys p;fur O;fDr }kjk fof/kf{kr izk:i esa vuqcU/k&i= (izfrfyfi layXu) ij gLrk{kj fd;s tk;saxsA gLrk{kfjr vuqcU/k&i= dh izfr [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh dks fjdkMZ gsrq Hksth tk;saxhA ,d o"kZ dh vof/k dh lafonk lekIr gksus ij u;k p;u mDr izfdz;k ds vuqlkj fd;k tk;sxk lkFk gh ,d o"kZ rd dk;Z djus okys xzke jkstxkj lsod dh lsok;sa larks"ktud ik;h tkrh gksa rks xzke lHkk dh [kqyh cSBd esa fopkj djds ikfjr izLrko ds vk/kkj ij iqu% mldh lafonk dk o"kkZuqo"kZ uohuhdj.k vf/kdre 2 o"kZ ds fy, fd;k tk ldsxkA""
A perusal of the said clause leaves no room for doubt that the maximum period for which a candidate can be engaged is two years. The initial engagement is for a period of one year, renewable thereafter. According to Clause-7 (cha), action can be taken against an erring candidate during the pendency of his tenure, if his work and conduct is not satisfactory and the Gram Panchayat in that event, would be entitled to order disengagement/removal.
Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that either way the respondent no. 1 is not entitled to continue inasmuch as the continuance is beyond the period of two years, which had already come to an end in the year 2008 and even otherwise the Gaon Sabha has passed a resolution on 25th of May, 2010 to take action against the said respondent. Pursuant to the said resolution, a show cause notice was issued whereafter the services have been terminated after clearing of the entire dues that was payable to the respondent no. 1.
Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent-Uma Shanker Yadav contends that the removal is without following the procedure prescribed in law and is otherwise arbitrary and that the continuance of the respondent was never disputed either by the State authorities or by the Gaon Sabha. It is, therefore, urged that the interim order granted by this Court is justified.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the moot question is as to whether the respondent no. 1 who had been engaged in the year 2006 is entitled to continue at present, and if so, the source of such a legal right.
As noticed above, Clause 7 of the Government Order dated 23rd of November, 2007 restricts the continuance beyond a period of two years. It is not disputed by the respondent no. 1 that he has continued beyond the aforesaid period. The recital contained in the Government Order does not permit the continuance of a candidate beyond two years and a fresh engagement has to be made in case, the scheme persists.
In view of this admitted position that the period of two years of engagement of respondent no. 1 has expired long back, the question as to whether the appellant could have removed him under the impugned order or not, looses significance inasmuch as once the tenure of the respondent no. 1 has come to an end, there is no legal right vested in him to claim continuance. Even otherwise, the order impugned in the writ petition passed, by the appellant, was backed up by a resolution as indicated in the order itself. The respondent no. 1 was also handed over his dues in accordance with the said Government Order. In such a situation, once the contract of engagement has expired and admittedly there was no other extension possible or actually made under any law for the time being in force, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to have granted an interim order, the impact whereof was to continue the respondent no. 1 as Gram Rojgar Sevak.
For the reasons aforesaid, the order impugned is unsustainable. The same is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed subject to the observations made hereinabove.
(A.P. Sahi,J) (F.I. Rebello,CJ)
Order Date :- 28.7.2010
RK
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 681
of 2010
*****
Hon'ble Ferdino Inacio Rebello,Chief Justice Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Allowed.
For orders, see order of date passed on separate sheets.
(A.P. Sahi,J) (F.I. Rebello,CJ) Order Date :- 28.7.2010 RK