ANIT KUMAR Vs. CHAIRMAN TARIFF AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the action of the respondent no.1, Tariff Authority for Major Ports of dispensing with the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 9th October, 2000 and seeks a writ of mandamus directing his reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The respondent Tariff Authority for Major Ports has been created by an amendment of the year 1997 to the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The said Authority consists of a Chairman and two Members who are empowered by Sections 48 to 50 of the said Act to regulate the tariff and conditionalities governing application of tariff for services rendered by Major Port Trusts as well as for use of properties of the said Port Trust.

(3.) The petitioner claims that he was selected and engaged as a daily wage peon in the office of the respondent w.e.f. 9th September, 1999 and continued in the said post uninterruptedly without any break whatsoever till 9th October, 2000 when his services were discharged. It is further his case that certain other persons also engaged as daily wage peons by the respondent after such engagement of the petitioner were however allowed to so continue. The petitioner claims such action of the respondent to be arbitrary, discriminatory and malafide. Motives for the same are also attributed to an officer of the respondent. It is the contention of the petitioner that the principle of "last come first go" has to be followed in the matter of casual employment also and the respondent which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India cannot indulge in "hire and fire" in the matter of casual employment.