BHAGWAT PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF CG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Class-IV employee under the State initially on 24-7-1993 on daily wage basis after calling for names from Employment Exchange concerned. Although the petitioner was appointed initially for a period of 89 days, his services were continued from time to time till 2-6-1998. On 2-6- 1998, the petitioner's services were regularized vide order Annexure P-1 and he was given regular pay-scale of Rs. 750-945/-. When the matter stood thus, his services were terminated by respondent No. 4 on 15-2-2000 vide Annexure P/3 on the basis of a Circular issued by the Government of the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh. Being aggrieved by the termination order dated 15-2-2000, the petitioner instituted O. A. No. 204/2000 before the State Administrative Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur (for short the Tribunal). The Tribunal by its order dated 6- 3-2000 (Annexure P/5) held that it has no jurisdiction to try the petition and accordingly returned the same with a direction to file the same before the appropriate forum. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India questioning the validity of the action of the respondents.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fourth respondent acted illegally in terminating the services of the petitioner on the basis of the Circular of the Government because, that Circular has no application to the case of the petitioner. It was pointed out that well before the Government issued the Circular, the petitioner's services were regularized on 2-6-1998 itself and he was given a regular pay-scale of Rs. 750-945. Learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents while supporting the impugned action of the respondents would contend that since the respondents found that regularization of the services of the petitioner done on 2-6-1998 is found to be irregular and illegal, his services were terminated, and therefore, no exception could be taken to the impugned action of the fourth respondent.

(3.) THE writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and full back wages, all attendant benefits, pecuniary or otherwise. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs. Petition Allowed.