LAWS(SC)-1997-3-96

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. BRU NATH MISRA

Decided On March 27, 1997
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Appellant
V/S
BRU NATH MISRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, made on August 6, 1993, in Writ Petition No. 1126 of 1991.

(3.) The admitted position is that the respondent was appointed as an Ayurvedic Medical Officer on ad hoc basis by proceedings dated October 11, 1983, in the pay scale of Rs. 850-1720/-. He remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for 5 years. Thereafter, on an application made by him on April 14, 1989, he was informed by the Government Order No. 5133 dated September 8, 1989, that he was permitted to resume duty on his furnishing fitness certificate with a condition that his unauthorised absence from duty was treated as a break in service. On so furnishing the certificate, he resumed duty. Subsequently, the Selection Committee was constituted under Rule 4(3) of the U. P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointment (on Posts within the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (for short, the Rules). Subsequently, the Rules came to be amended. Rule 4 postulates that any person who was directly appointed on ad hoc basis before January 1, 1977, and is continuing in service as such on the date of the commencement of the Rules, which came into force on May 14, 1979 would be regularised subject to the conditions mentioned thereunder. Rule 8 provides that "the services of a person appointed on ad hoc basis who is not found suitable or whose case not covered by Rule 4 (i) shall be terminated forthwith and, on such termination, he shall be entitled to receive one months pay". The case of the respondent was placed before the Committee on January 22, 1991 and he was found to be unfit for regularisation. Accordingly, his appointment came to be terminated. It was challenged in the High Court in the above writ petition and the High Court has stated that the appointment dated September 8, 1989, was a fresh appointment and, therefore, the termination was bad in law. Thus, this appeal by special leave.