CIVIL APPEAL 8313 of 2008 on 23 November 2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 8313 of 2008.Reserved on: 15.12.2010.Decided on: 31.12.2010.

Ajay Kumar.

…Petitioner.

-Versus-

State of H.P. and Others.

…Respondents.

Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?[1] No.

__________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. :Mr. K.C. Sankhyan, Advocate.For respondents No. 1 to 4. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No. 5. : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge:

Petitioner was appointed as Takniki Sahayak. He joined his duties on 23.11.2001 in Gram Panchayat Dhaneta. His services were terminated vide Annexure A-4, dated 06.03.2002. Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that he has been condemned un-heard before the issuance of Annexure A-4, dated 06.03.2002.

2. Case of the respondent, precisely is that the petitioner is real nephew of the Pradhan and in view of Rule 137 of Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General), Rules, 1997, he could not be appointed as Takniki Sahayak. Petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to these averments contained in the reply. A bare perusal of Rule 137 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

Raj (General), Rules, 1997 makes it abundantly clear that no person shall be employed by a Panchayat, if he is a near relative including nephew. In this case, since the petitioner is real nephew of the Pradhan, his appointment is illegal. In view of this, no separate notice was required to be issued to the petitioner. Petitioner had an opportunity to rebut the averments contained in the reply, whereby it has been specifically pointed-out that the petitioner is real nephew of the Pradhan. He has not chosen to rebut the same. Consequently, the action to terminate the services of the petitioner has rightly been taken by the competent authority under Section 136 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Rule 137 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Reneral), Rules, 1997.

2. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.

December 31, 2010. (bhupender)

(Rajiv Sharma) Judge