STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. ABDUL KHALIQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the High court of Allahabad dismissing two second appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the respondents, abdul Khaliq end Sheo Narain Pandey, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs. As a common question of law is involved and the facts are similar, it would be convenient to give facts only in the appeal dealing with Abdul Khaliq.

(2.) Abdul Khaliq was appointed as a process-server in the office of the Sales Tax Officer, Varanast, in July 1948 and was promoted to the post of Daftri in the same office on 20/11/1948. When he was appointed, the office in which he was appointed was a temporary office. On 22/05/1956 the government issued a general order on the , subject of conversion of temporary posts of ministerial and Inferior staff in the Sales Tax Organization into permanent ones By this order certain temporary posts mentioned in the enclosed list were converted into permanent ones with the effect from 1/04/1955. On 12/12/1957, the Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax, declared certain members of the inferior staff in circle office, Varanasi, to be permanent in the posts noted against each with effect from April I, 1958. On October 26, the plaintiff was served with an order of the Deputy Commissioner. Sale Tax, terminating his Services. The relevant part of the older reads as follows :- "the services of the officials whose names are given below should be terminated with effect from the date of service of the order They should be paid one month's pay in lieu of notice 1. . . . . . 2. Shri Sheo Narain Pandey, Accountant, Varanasi Circle, Varanuse 3. Shri Abdul Khaliq, Daftri Circle Office, Varanasi. Various representations were made by the plaintiff but they proved fruitless. On 24/05/1958 the plaintiff brought a suit for declaration that the order, dated 26/10/1956, purporting to terminate the plaintiff's service was illegal and ineffective and that the plaintiff still continued to be in service. He also claimed a decree for Rs. 1,094. 00 on account for salary etc In the plaint it was alleged that the plaintiff was made permanent in the post of Daftri with effect from 1/04/1955, as per the order, dated 22/05/1956, which we have mentioned above. He further contended that the order terminating his service violated Art. 311 of the Constitution.

(3.) The State denied that the plaintiff had any permanent post and asserted that the plaintiff's appointment was on a temporary basis and his services were liable to be terminated at any time on one month's notice and this condition of service remained in full force till the date when the plaintiff's services were terminated.