Devendra Singh Shankar Singh ... vs Member Mah.Admn.Tribunal, Bench ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5293 Bom

                                                     1                               Judg. wp 1020.20.odt 

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
                                NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                                          Writ Petition No.1020  of 2002

              Devendra Singh Shankar Singh Thakur,
              Aged about 57 years, Occ.-(terminated from service),
              R/o.-Near Gas Plant, Medical College and Hospital, 
              Nagpur.                                                                        .... Petitioner.

                                                          -Versus-

              1]       Member Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
                       Bench at Nagpur.

              2]      The Dean, Government Medical College and Hospital, 
                      Nagpur.                                                            .... Respondents.
              -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Shri  N.S. Khandewale, Counsel for petitioner.
              Shri  N.S. Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.
              -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Coram : R. K. Deshpande & 
                             Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.

               Dated  : 31    July, 2017
                              st 
                                         

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R. K. Deshpande, J.)

The petitioner working as a temporary employee as per the

order dated 30-8-1978, was terminated from service by an order

dated 18-08-1986 which was the subject matter of challenge before

the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Transfer Application No.

2 Judg. wp 1020.20.odt

26 of 1993 (in Writ Petition No.2103 of 1986) which was dismissed

on 03-01-2002. Hence, this writ petition.

2] It is well settled that a temporary employee has no right to the

post. The order of termination records the reason that the services

of the petitioner are not required after 26-08-1986 in the hospital on

the administrative grounds. We find that the order of termination is

innocuous.

3] The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our

attention to the order of suspension and certain contemplated enquiry

against the petitioner before termination of his service. The Tribunal

has held that the petitioner was purely temporary, appointed on a

fixed pay and the material placed on record to justify the termination

could at the most constitute a motive and not the foundation for

terminating the service. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal

does not call for any interference.

4] The writ petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No

order as to costs.

                                                 JUDGE                                             JUDGE


                            Deshmukh