Shashi Kant Sharma And Ors. vs Conservetor Of Forest
2017 Latest Caselaw 7809 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

						Reserved on  22.11.2017           
 
						Delivered on   07.12.2017            
 
Court No. - 28
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5521 of 1993
 

 
Petitioner :- Shashi Kant Sharma And Ors.
 
Respondent :- Conservetor Of Forest
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Swapnil Kumar,Pradeep Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Indrabhan Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent.

The petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition praying for quashing of the order dated 13/15.01.1993, passed by the respondent, whereby the temporary services of the petitioners were terminated under the provisions of Temporary Government Servant (service termination) Rules, 1975.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed between the year 1980-82 on different Class-III posts in the Forest Department and initially orders for their regularization of their services were passed by this Court, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the petitioners were given appointments as temporary government servants in the year 1992 and by the impugned order dated 13/15.01.1993, their service were terminated.

In paragraph no.38 of the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been stated that the petitioners were given two opportunities to appear in the regularization test but they failed to appear in the same and therefore, the respondent was left with no option except to terminate their services. In reply to the above averment, no specific reply has been given by the petitioners in their Rejoinder Affidavit except denial. Further, all the petitioners appear to have crossed the age of superannuation and therefore, no relief can be granted to them at this belated stage. A perusal of the order sheet also shows that the petitioners have not made any effort to get the petition decided earlier and therefore, they do not appear to be interested in the job.

Therefore, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 07.12.2017

Ruchi Agrahari