Allahabad High Court
Kuldeep Kumar And Another vs Chairman, Nagar Panchayat And ... on 26 September, 2016
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Baghel
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 59
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7583 of 2005
Petitioner :- Kuldeep Kumar And Another
Respondent :- Chairman, Nagar Panchayat And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mool Behari Saxena,A.Singh,A.T. Kulshrestha,M.S.Saxena,Pankaj Govil,Saurabh Gaur,Surendra Kaur
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioners are two in number. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 states that the petitioner no.1 does not want to pursue this writ petition.
The petitioners have instituted this writ proceedings for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 03.02.2005 passed by the Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Bilaspur terminating the services of petitioner no.1 and reverting the petitioner no. 2 from the post of Office Clerk to the post of Peon. At the time of moving this writ petition, this Court on 21.02.2005 had passed the following order:
"Connect with Writ Petition No. 40501 of 2004.
Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4. He prays for and is granted one month's time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner shall have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List in the week commencing 18.04.2005.
Issue notice to respondent nos. 1 and 2 fixing a date in the week commencing 18.04.2005.
It is the case of the petitioners that after proper selection and against a clear vacancy, the petitioner no. 1 was appointed as Tax Collector on 01.04.2003 an was confirmed on the said post on 14.05.2004. The petitioner no. 2 was promoted as Office Clerk on clear vacancy on 29.11.2004. By the impugned order dated 03.02.2005 the services of the petitioners have been dispensed with by a simple two line order without giving any opportunity to the petitioners and without following due process of law. Such averments have been made in paragraph no. 29 of the writ petition. The impugned order merely states that the work of the petitioners is not satisfactory and hence their services are terminated. Prima-facie the impugned order appears to be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Although normally this Court does not pass interim order staying the termination order, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case it is directed that until further orders the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 03.02.2005 shall remain stayed and the petitioners shall be allowed to work and paid their salary regularly."
In the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken the stands that there were total 16 employee in the Nagar Panchayat and one outgoing Chairman, Sri Kailash Kumar and the then officiating Executive Officer, Sri Dinesh Kumar have appointed illegally as many as 14 employees. The name of these employees have been mentioned in Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit. The name of the petitioner no.2 is figured at serial no.7 while the name of petitioner no. 1 is figured at serial no. 14 in the said list. Two other employees namely Mahendra Pal Singh had preferred a writ petition no.61596 of 2005 and Dinesh Kumar, Executive Officer had preferred writ petition no. 14679 of 2006. In Mahendra Pal Singh, the Court on 18.07.2006 had passed the following order.
"Petitioner claims that he was appointed in Nagar Panchayat Bilasdpur, Distinct Gautam Budh Nagar and thereafter his services have been illegally dispensed with.
Along-with writ petition copy of purported advertisement on the basis of which appointment of petitioner had been made, has not been appended.
Specific plea has been taken in the counter affidavit that at no point of time any selection proceedings have been undertaken and the appointment of the petitioner is forged and fictitious. It has also been mentioned that termination order which has been challenged before this Court is also procured order.
As serious allegations have come forward as such, Commissioner, Meereut Division, Meerut is directed to make inquiry in respect of purported appointment of the petitioner and other similarly situated employees and thereafter submit his report before this Court within eight weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
List this petition after eight weeks for further hearing."
Record indicates that the order of this Court dated 18.07.2006 has not been complied with as yet. Admittedly the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut has not conducted the enquiry in terms of the Court's order, mentioned above. Learned counsel for the respondent has produced records which indicate that in respect of Dinesh Kumar, who was the Executive Officer, some enquiry was conducted by the Naib Tehsildar, which has been endorsed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, in my view, the said enquiry is not the compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 18.07.2006 in letter and spirit.
In view of the above, the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut is directed to comply the order dated 18.07.2006 within two months after furnishing opportunity to the petitioner no.2, Bobi Ram. The enquiry report shall be brought on the record. The affidavit shall be sworn by an officer who is not below the rank of A.D.M.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that in the impugned order the petitioner no.2 has been reverted from the post of the Clerk to the post of the Peon. It is stated that in spite of the interim order dated 03.02.2005, the salary of the petitioner no.2 has not been paid.
It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that insofar the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, there is no allegation that his appointment was made on non-existent post. The impugned order itself indicates that he was reverted from the post of Clerk to the post of the Peon.
Learned counsel for the respondent could not satisfy the Court, why Court's previous order could not be complied with.
In view of the above, the petitioner no.2 is at liberty to move an application for the payment of his salary within two weeks before the District Magistrate, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate order before the next date fixed.
Let a xerox copy of this order be supplied to Sri Aditya Kumar Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for information and compliance of this order.
List this case in the first week of January, 2017.
The matter shall not be treated as tied up or part heard to this bench.
Order Date :- 26.9.2016
AU
