Allahabad High Court
Chandra Shekhar Singh Yadav And ... vs State Of U.P. And Others on 8 January, 2021
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
RESERVED
In Chamber
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28281 of 1997
Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar Singh Yadav And Another
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- K.K. Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. To assail correctness of the order dated 06.11.1996 passed by respondent no.3-Assistant Record Officer Obra, District Sonebhadra and circular letter dated 17.09.1996 issued by respondent no.1-Secretary & Commissioner Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow (Annexure Nos.5 and 6 respectively), this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioners.
2. In a nut-sell, the case of the petitioners are that the appointment of the petitioners were made on 11.07.1996 on temporary basis and petitioners have reported their duties on 12th July, 1996 (copy whereof is annexed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition), which is evident from the report of Assistant Record Officer Obra. Thereafter, the petitioners were started their functioning on the basis of their appointment letter dated 11.07.1996 on the post of Survey Lekhpal. It is mentioned in the appointment letter that the appointment of the petitioners were made purely on temporary basis and their services can be terminated at any time by given one month prior notice. It appears that, thereafter, the respondent no.1 has issued an order on 17.09.1996 by imposing ban on the appointments and has also directed to the concerned authority that if any appointments/ promotions have been made, the same be cancelled with immediate effect on the ground that certain persons of dissolved Kaimoor Survey Agencies or declared surplus. On 16.10.1995, the Commissioner Varanasi Division has issued a direction to the District Magistrate Varanasi and Mirzapur to give employment of remaining 36 persons belonging to the Kaimoor Survey Agency. All the persons, who were remained, have been absorbed and now not a single employee of Kaimoor Survey Agency is waiting for appointment. It is further alleged that on the basis of order dated 17.09.1996, the Assistant Record Officer-respondent no.3 terminated the services of the petitioners by order dated 06.10.1996 on the basis of absorption/re-engagement of the employee of the dissolved Kaimoor Survey Agency, who have already been engaged and none is remain for giving employment. It appears that Kaimoor Survey Agency was operating in the Division of Varansi for the purpose of survey but Kaimoor Survey Agency has been dissolved and its employees declared surplus. The termination order dated 06.11.1996 refers to a circular letter issued by Commissioner and Secretary dated 17.09.1996 as also a consequential order passed by the Record Officer dated 06.11.1996. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner have preferred this writ petition before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the termination order based on the letter dated 17.09.1996 issued by respondent no.1-Secretary and Commissioner Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow does not exist when the order of termination was passed. The impugned termination order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, therefore, the impugned order has been passed in an arbitrary, discriminatory exercise of powers violating of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is specifically stated that order dated 06.11.1996 passed by Assistant Record Officer have not proceeded by any notice to show cause to the petitioners, which is against the U.P. Temporary Government Servants Rules, 1975.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that before passing the said termination order dated 06.11.1996 as well as circular letter dated 17.09.1996, neither any notice or information nor any opportunity of hearing have been given to the petitioners, thus, the termination order is illegal and based on no reason. The impugned order has been passed in an arbitrary, discriminatory exercise of powers violating of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, hence, the same is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 22.04.1998 in Writ Petition No.37136 of 1996, wherein the Court quashed the G.O. dated 06.11.1998.
5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the writ petition by submitting that as per the appointment of the petitioners, it has been clearly mentioned that at any time the services of the petitioners could be terminated without giving prior notice. He has further submitted that however there was no need of giving any notice to the petitioners, hence, after considering the legal aspects, the termination orders have been passed by the Board of Revenue.
6. I have heard Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.
7. Admittedly, the petitioners were given temporary appointment on the post of Survey Lekhpal vide appointment letter dated 11.07.1996 and by the impugned termination order dated 06.11.1996 the said appointment/promotion has been cancelled on the basis of circular dated 17.09.1996 issued by the Board of Revenue directing the concerned authorities to cancel all appointments/promotions so that retrenched employees of Kaimoor Survey Agency could be absorbed. It has been revered that all retrenched employees of Kaimoor Survey Agency had already been absorbed.
8. It appears that all the retrenched employees of Kaimoor Survey Agency had already been absorbed prior to passing of the impugned order. In the circumstances of the case, therefore, the basis on which the appointment/promotion of the petitioners have been cancelled is not non-existent.
9. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned termination order dated 06.11.1996 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The petitioners are held entitled to consequential benefits.
10. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :-08.01.2021
Ajeet
(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)
