CIVIL APPEAL 9814 of 2008 on 19 November 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

C.W.P. (T) No. 9814 of 2008.

Decided on 14[th] December, 2010.

_____________________________________________________

Balwan Singh Pathania.

…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. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral):

Petitioner was appointed as Clerk on daily wage basis in Government Degree College Dehri, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. in the month of August, 1997. His services were orally terminated on 19.11.2003. Petitioner has neither been served with a show-cause notice nor any inquiry was instituted against him.

2. Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the termination of the petitioner vide letter dated 19.11.2003 was in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the issuance of letter dated 19.11.2003.

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.

5. Petitioner was appointed in the month of August, 1997. His services have been terminated on 19.11.2003. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been issued even a show-cause notice before the decision was taken to terminate his services.

6. Case of the respondents, as per the averments contained in the reply, is that since the petitioner was appointed against the amalgamated /P.T.A. funds, he was not required to be heard before the decision was taken to terminate his services. This plea cannot be accepted. Petitioner was an employee of the Government Degree College Dehri, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, even though he was paid funds from A.F./P.T.A. He was required to be heard before terminating his services on 19.11.2003. In this case, the necessity of issuing the notice and hearing the petitioner have become more important, since as per the averments contained in the petition, the beheaviour of the petitioner was not upto the mark and there were complaints against him. According to the contents of the reply, a criminal case was also registered against him. Petitioner was required to be given an opportunity to meet-out the allegations levelled against him in the reply. He has been condemned un-heard. Petitioner had already worked in the respondent-College for more than six years. Respondent-College had already regularized the services of similarly situated person, namely, Shri Jagdeep Singh, who was also appointed in Government Degree College Dehri and paid from amalgamated/P.T.A. funds.

7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The termination of the petitioner dated 19.11.2003 is declared illegal and arbitrary. The respondents are directed to re-engage the petitioner as Clerk. The period of break between 19.11.2003 till his re-engagement will be counted for the purpose of seniority alone. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. No costs.

December 14, 2010. (bhupender)

(Rajiv Sharma) Judge

`