(1.) The petitioner has called in question the order Annexure P-1 dtd. 12- 10-2012 by which his services have been terminated holding that same are not required further, by payment of one month salary.
(2.) Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the vacant post of Driver vide Annexure P-4 on 3-5-2012 by the Family Court, Raipur, by a duly constituted committee subject to the conditions incorporated in the order of appointment and he was appointed for a period of two years. It is the further case of the petitioner that his services have been terminated during the period of probation with immediate effect from the date of order i.e. 12-10-2012 vide Annexure P-1 holding that his services are no longer required which is ex facie illegal, without jurisdiction and without authority of law.
(3.) Return has been filed by respondents No.2 and 3 stating inter alia that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Driver as the earlier incumbent of that post namely, Shri Bhushanlal Thakur was removed from service vide order dtd. 23-11-2010, but the said incumbent has represented before the competent authority and the competent authority by order dtd. 27-9-2012, partly allowed his representation by modifying the dismissal order dtd. 23-11-2010 and by inflicting the penalty of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. Therefore, on account of joining of the earlier incumbent Shri Bhushanlal Thakur on the post of Driver on his reinstatement in service, the post held by the petitioner was deemed to be automatically vacated and that is the reason why the petitioner's services were directed to be held not required and thus, by giving one month salary, the petitioner has been removed from service.