Satish Kumar (State) vs The State of U.P. and Others

Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of the writ petition.

This writ petition impugns the order dated 02.04.1991 (Annexure No. 7), passed by Director, Administration, Medical Services and the order dated 17.6.1991 (Annexure No. 8), passed by Chief Medical Officer, Deoria thereby terminating the services of petitioner with effect from the date of receiving of this notice/order.

It appears that petitioner was initially engaged on 01.04.1989 as a daily wager at the rate of Rs. 15/- per day. He joined the duty on 03.04.1989 and he was finally directed to join at the Primary Health Centre, Gauri Bazar, Deoria. Thereafter, a district level selection committee considered petitioner''s case for appointment on regular basis and finally on his work and conduct having been found satisfactory. His case was recommended for appointment of regular basis. Thus, the petitioner was given a regular appointment as Class IV employee vide order dated 1.12.1989. The work and conduct of the petitioner have been claimed to have remained satisfactory, and at no stage, he earned any adverse entry. However, to utter dismay, by sweeping orders dated 02.4.1991 and 17.6.1991, impugned herein, services of class IV employee appointed after 12.06.1986 at Primary Health center, Bakhra (Gauri Bazar) in Deoria were terminated with immediate effect.

Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that the services of petitioner were terminated by a sweeping order, issued by the Director, (Health & Family Welfare),Medical Directorate, U. P. Lucknow, and thereafter, vide a separate order by the Chief Medical Officer, Deoria, without giving any opportunity. Learned Counsel further submitted that similarly situated some other regular employees have also filed writ petitions, and in one of such writ petitions being Writ Petition No. 1644 (SS) 1992 (Narendra Kumar v. State of U. P. and two others), a learned Single Judge of this Court passed a detailed order and quashed the termination order.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for State referred to the counter affidavit and submitted that in a thorough enquiry, it was found that a large number of persons had been appointed in Health Department by way of fraud in disregard to the rules as also beyond the competence of department to make such appointments.

Under the circumstances, a direction had been issued to lodge F.I.R against delinquent employees for having given appointments de-hors the rules and contrary to the orders of State Government. Besides, these persons were also found to be working not against any sanctioned post and for that reason Dr. Balveer Singh, the then Chief Medical Officer, Deoria and the dealing clerk had been placed under suspension. Thus, learned Counsel for State pleaded for dismissal of the writ petition.

Having carefully considered the rival submissions, I am of the considered view that though the appointment of petitioner has been made de-hors the rules and beyond the competence of authority in disregard to ban imposed on such appointments but the fact remains that the petitioner-employee had worked continuously for a considerable period till his services were terminated vide impugned orders dated 02.4.1991 and 17.6.1991.

Learned Single Judge of this Court (supra) has referred to the ratio of judgments as elucidated in cases like (i) Parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India (UOI), (ii) Samsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (iii) The State of Punjab Vs. Prakash Singh Cheema, (iv) The Regional Manager and Another Vs. Pawan Kumar Dubey, (v) 1984 (Suppl) SCC 540 Manmohan Singh Jaitla v. Commissioner, Union Territory of Chandgarh and Ors. and (vi) Shrawan Kumar Jha and others Vs. State of Bihar and others,

The main thrust of ratio of these judgments is directed to the application of Article 311(2) of Constitution of India, and it does not make a distinction between a permanent employee or a temporary one. In these judgments, it was also laid that even in a case of temporary Government Servant, he has right to hold the post for a tenure he is appointed and his services can be terminated in terms of order and as per the prevalent Rules.

Under the circumstances, in the judgment of learned Single Judge, it is held that the petitioners therein were entitled to have an opportunity to show cause that the orders, whereunder they were appointed, are valid. Hence, that writ petition was allowed and a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the termination orders dated 02.4.1991 and 31.12.1991 were issued. It was also directed that the petitioners therein were entitled for consequential benefits arising from the said order.

As in the instant case also, though the appointments allegedly were made contrary to the Rules and in disregard to the ban order imposed by State Government but the fact remains that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity, despite having satisfactorily served from 1989 to 1991, to show cause that the appointment letter issued to him, was valid and rather by an omnibus/sweeping order, the services of petitioner and similarly situated many other employees were terminated. Thus, in view of the order, passed by learned Single Judge (supra) and for the reasons that the petitioner was not given opportunity to show cause regarding the validity of appointment order, I am of the considered view that the writ petition deserves to succeed.

Hence, writ petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 02.4.1991 (Annexure No. 7), passed by Director, Administration, Medical Services and the order dated 17.6.1991 (Annexure No. 8), passed by Chief Medical Officer, Deoria are hereby quashed. The petitioner would be entitled to get similar benefits as were made admissible in the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 1644 (SS) of 1992 (Narendra Kumar v. State of U. P. and Ors.).