M.P. NAGAR NIGAM Vs. MANSUKH LAL SARAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Nigam, Nagar Palika Karamchari Sangh states, that the petitioner does not wish to assail the determination rendered by the High Court, with reference to Arun Kumar Tiwari (respondent no.1, before the High Court).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states, that the petitioner is only aggrieved with the direction contained in paragraph 52(iv) of the impugned judgment, which is reproduced below:

(3.) We find no infirmity in the aforesaid direction. We would however like to clarify, that the expression "...in accordance with law..." used by the High Court in the above direction, would necessarily mean, that in case any action is to be taken against a particular individual employee, it will be necessary for the authorities to proceed against him by issuing a notice to him and affording an opportunity of hearing, as is contemplated under the rules of natural justice. We wish to further clarify, that the expression "...in accordance with law..." would protect all such employees whose appointments have been made in consonance with the statutory provisions, or under a valid policy decision of the State Government, and/or in consonance with a judgment rendered on the subject of regular appointment, or regularization of appointment.