STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. ATAL BEHARI SHASTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave is granted and the appeal is heard on merits.

(2.) The second appellant is the Administrative Board established under the U. P. Women's and Children Institutions (Control) Act, 1956 for properly controlling and supervising orphanages and other institutions of destitute children and women in the State, with the funds to be received by way of donations from the public and aid from the State government. The first respondent was appointed on 29/09/1958 in a temporary post of Licensing Inspector in the establishment of the Administrative Board, on a pay scale of Rs. 120-8-200 EB 10-300 plus dearness and other allowances as admissible to State government employees. The first respondent who should have returned to duty by 26/03/1970 after availing of the 'holi' Holidays, failed to do so even by the month of July 1970 despite a notice served upon him in that regard. This situation led to the issuing of an order dated 15/07/1970 by the Administrative Board terminating the services of the first respondent as its Licensing Inspector with effect from 26/03/1970 by informing him that he would get one month's salary in lieu of notice. The first respondent's suit, filed in the Munsif court at Meerut in the year 1971 seeking the reliefs of declaration that the order of the Administrative Board by which his services were terminated was void and of the mandatory injunction for his reinstatement, was dismissed on 4/12/1974. Civil appeal preferred by the first respondent was a holder of a temporary post, his services could not have been terminated without affording him an opportunity of being heard in the matter, allowed the writ petition by his order dated 27/11/1991, quashed the impugned decisions of the court of Munsif and of the Service tribunal, besides the impugned order of first respondent's termination and granted to first respondent a relief in the following terms:

(3.) In the present appeal preferred under Article 136 of the Constitution, the legality of the said order of the High court is questioned.