ARUN SHARMA Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner being a Cricketer, was appointed as an Apprentice Trainee sports for one year by the respondent no.1 under the then relevant Sports Quota Policy. On June 9, 1999 after successful completion of the Apprenticeship training period and finding his performance satisfactory, respondent No.1 appointed the petitioner as a Trainee Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that on May 30, 2002, his services were terminated without any reason on the alleged ground of unsatisfactory performance. It is his case, on Feb. 16, 2004, he challenged his illegal termination before the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, which had found the termination of the petitioner, who had served for four years as unfair as well as too harsh. The ONGC, vide its letter dated Feb. 16, 2004 referred the matter back to the Board of the respondent No.1 for fresh consideration.

(3.) It is averred and contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Board of respondent No.1 vide its letter dated June 08, 2004 upheld the termination of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended, the said grounds were re-invented unlike the termination letter of May 30, 2002. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner again appealed before the Ministry vide his letter dated May 12, 2005 alleging discrimination, favouratism and biased action against him. The Ministry again remanded the matter back to the respondent No.1 for taking a sympathetic approach suitably accommodating the petitioner in its work force. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on May 26, 2006, the Board of the respondent No.1 reiterated its decision on the termination of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not represented U.P. in Cooch Behar Trophy Tournaments in the year 1990-91 and 1991-92 as claimed by him. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on Jan. 25, 2010, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas again wrote to respondent No.1. According to him, the Ministry noted that the Board passed the earlier orders on June 8, 2004 and May 26, 2006 without taking note of full facts of the case. The Ministry took note of the facts, which clearly indicated that the petitioner had been victim of systematic discrimination and favouratism and accordingly, the Ministry advised the Board of the respondent No.1 to consider once again the case of reinstatement of the petitioner in IOC or any of its subsidiaries in the meeting scheduled on Jan. 29, 2010.