Kaka Ram Verma vs Indian Red Cross Society, Punjab Branch and Others

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—Since 1979, the petitioner was working as Training Supervisor in St. John Ambulance Association, District Centre, Patiala, on temporary basis. He was imparting training to the children in the schools and students in the colleges and to drivers and policemen. Due to financial crisis, the respondent Society abolished the said post. The decision to abolish the said post has not been annexed with the petition. In pursuance of the said abolition, services of the petitioner have been terminated vide order dated 26.12.2008. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged his termination.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, the aforesaid post has not been abolished in good faith, rather it has been abolished with mala fide intention to terminate the services of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the said abolition and the consequent termination of the services of the petitioner is not legal. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Navneet Verma 2004 (3) R.S.J. 170 and another decision of this Court in Navneet Verma, Accounts Executive, Haryana Bureau of Public Administration, Chandigarh Vs. State of Haryana and others, .

After hearing Counsel for the petitioner and going through the contents of the petition, I do not find any force in the contention of Counsel for the petitioner. It is the prerogative of an employer to create or abolish the post, but the abolition of a post should be made in good faith and not in a mala fide or arbitrary manner. In this case, the respondent Society is in financial crisis. In view of this fact, they have decided to abolish the post. The respondent Society is a charitable institution. In the facts and circumstances of the case. I do not find any ground, on which the instant abolition of the post can be said to be mala fide or not in good faith. Mere allegation in the petition is not enough, until and unless it is substantiated by some material. I do not find any such material in this case. In view of this conclusion, the judgments cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner do not help the petitioner.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that abolition of the post was made in good faith and no interference is required in the order of termination of the services of the petitioner.

Dismissed.