Allahabad High Court
Lallan Prasad vs S.D.O. & Others on 6 July, 2012
Bench: Krishna Murari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
"Reserved"
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8121 of 1994
Petitioner :- Lallan Prasad
Respondent :- S.D.O. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Swaraj Prakash,Gautam
Respondent Counsel :- Standing Counsel.
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has claimed a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.02.1994 passed by the respondent no. 1. A further relief of mandamus has been claimed through amendment to direct the respondents to make payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner.
Facts
are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Consolidation Lekhpal on 09.01.1968 and continued on the said post till 18.01.1972 and thereafter he was retrenched from service. The petitioner was again appointed as an adhoc Lekhpal vide order dated 08.06.1980 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khalilabad on a vacancy caused due to termination of services of one Ram Saran, Lekhpal. The service of the petitioner was confirmed on the said post vide order dated 01.03.1986 with effect from 15.06.1982. After being confirmed, the petitioner continu8ed to function on the said post till 26.02.1994 when his service was terminated on the ground that since he has failed in the special Lekhpal examination held in 1981 and being an untrained Lekhpal, he is not entitled to continue in service. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing instant writ petition.
Vide order dated 17.03.1994, this Court stayed the effect and operation of the impugned termination order dated 26.02.1994, as a result the petitioner continued in service till 31.07.2001 when he retired on attaining the age of superannuation.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after being confirmed in service vide order dated 01.03.1986 with effect from 15.06.1982, his services could not have been terminated without any notice or opportunity of hearing and the impugned order suffers from vice of principles of natural justice. It has further been submitted that the result of the examination held in 1981 was never communicated to the petitioner and there appears to be no justification to terminate his service on the said ground after 13 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if the petitioner failed, as alleged by the respondents, in the examined held in 1981 he was entitled for being afforded two more opportunities as Para 226 of the Land Record Manual provides for three opportunities to clear the Lekhpal examination.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. The only fact stated in the counter affidavit is that the order of confirmation was irregular and since the petitioner failed to pass the Lekhpal examination, therefore, he was not entitled to continue in service and the termination order was rightly passed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is undisputed that the services of the petitioner was confirmed vide order dated 01.03.1986 with effect from 15.06.1982 even though he is alleged to have failed in the trainee examination conducted in 1981 and was allowed to continue till his services were terminated vide order dated 26.02.1994. The services of the petitioner having been confirmed on the post, it was imperative upon the respondents to have atleast issue a show cause notice and given an opportunity to the petitioner before terminating his services and thus, the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice.
Further, the only reason for terminating the services as set out in the impugned order and also in the counter affidavit is that he failed to pass training examination conducted in 1981 and untrained Lekhpal is not entitled to continue in service.
In order to be appointed on the post of Lekhpal, a candidate has to undergo training and pass requisite examination as prescribed in Part-II of the U. P. Land Records Manual. The Board of Revenue issued a circular dated 28.01.1986 to the effect that a list of untrained Lekphuals who failed in the examination conducted in 1981 be forwarded so that necessary action may be taken for sending them for training, though the petitioner, as alleged by the respondents, failed in the examination conducted in 1981 and he was allowed to continue in service but there is nothing on record to indicate that his name was forwarded and considered to be sent for training as provided by Circular dated 28.01.1986. Para 226 of Part-II Chapter XIV of U. P. Land Records Manual provides that general candidates selected for training in Lekhpals' schools shall be allowed three chances to succeed in the examination and the scholars failing to pass in third attempt shall be removed from the School. By virtue of para 226 of Part-II Chapter XIV of the U. P. Land Records Manual, the petitioner was entitled to be given two more chances to appear and clear the examination which was denied. Further in view of the Circular of the Board of Revenue dated 28.01.1986, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for sending him for training which was not done and instead the respondents allowed him to continue in service.
In view of the above facts, the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner vide order dated 26.02.1994 after he has worked on the post for 14 years cannot be said to be justified in any manner. Circular of the Board of Revenue dated 28.01.1986 also provided that those untrained Lekhpals who are continuing in service on the strength of the order passed by any court of law staying the termination be also sent for training. The petitioner also obtained the stay order and has continued in service still he was not considered for being sent for training.
For the aforesaid facts and discussions, the impugned order dated 26.02.1994 is not liable to be sustained and is hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. Since the petitioner continued to remain in service continuously right from the date of his appointment till the date of his superannuation, he shall be entitled for payment of regular pension as well as other post retiral benefits admissible under law.
Date : July 6, 2012 (Krishna Murari, J)
Dcs.
