Avneesh Kumar vs U.P. State Road Transport Corp. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1713 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2434 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Avneesh Kumar
 
Respondent :- U.P. State Road Transport Corp. Thru. M.D. Lko. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Riyaz Ahmad,Neetu Bharti
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Anuj Kudesia
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Heard Shri Riyaz Ahamad, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned counsel for opposite parties.

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 07.08.2019 terminating his services which were contractual. He relies on a similar order dated 10.01.2022 passed in Writ - A No. 63 of 2022; Prashant Mishra Vs. STate of U.P. and Ors., which reads as under:-

"Heard.

The petitioner herein is a contractual employee of the contesting opposite parties. His services have been terminated, albeit, without any opportunity of hearing to him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this court in similar matter wherein a similar order of disengagement has been quashed on 24.12.2021 vide the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 16116 (SS) of 2021 on the ground of violation of principles of Natural Justice.

There are directions of the Managing Director - Corporation that even in matter of disengagement of contractual employees an opportunity of hearing be given.

On being confronted, Sri Ratnesh Chandra, Advocate could not deny the fact that the matter was similar to the one referred hereinabove which had been decided on 24.12.2021.

However, considering the fact that the petitioner has approached this court with delay, this petition is disposed off with the observation/direction that if the petitioner's contract still subsists and no other person has been engaged in his place, then the order dated 23.11.2019 shall be treated as inoperative and a nullity and the services of the petitioner shall be restored on the same terms on which he was working earlier, subject to liberty to the opposite parties to proceed against him in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing and to pass a fresh order in this regard. With these observations/directions the writ petition is disposed off."

However, the Court finds that the said order was subject to the condition i.e. if the petitioner's contract still subsists and no other person has been engaged in his place, meaning thereby, if the contract was of five years and services have been terminated within the period of contract say after 2 or 3 years and remaining period of the contract still remains, then, only the petitioner will get the benefit.

Today, on being asked learned counsel for petitioner informs that petitioner's contract was only for one year, therefore, the benefit of the said order shall not be available to the petitioner herein, Unless of course the period of his contract still survives, but for the termination of the same. His claim be considered accordingly in the light of the aforesaid.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

(Rajan Roy,J.)

Order Date :- 28.4.2022

R.K.P.