NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent No. 6.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as an Accounts Assistant Grade -B in a Government Company known as Kumaon Television Limited which was a subsidiary company of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam. This company was wounded up in the year 1995 and vide order dated 30.12.1995 it was decided to absorb the retrenched employees of this Company in other Government departments. On 12.3.1996, the petitioner was absorbed as Junior Clerk in U.P. Sugar Department. Subsequently, by an Act of Parliament the new State of Uttarakhand was created and the petitioner gave his option for Uttarakhand and he was thereafter allotted to the Sugar Department of Uttarakhand. The services of the petitioner were subsequently confirmed in the year 2004 w.e.f. 1999 vide order dated 4.6.2003. The petitioner subsequently moved an application before the concerned authorities of Uttarakhand for his pay protection. His plea was that the pay he was getting in the Kumaon Television Limited should be protected in the new department. Ultimately the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 1133 (S/S) of 2004 which was disposed of with the direction to the authorities to consider giving him pay protection and pass appropriate orders. In the year 2011, when nothing happened, the petitioner filed another Writ petition No. 1157 (S/S) of 2011. Subsequently notices were issued by the Court to the Sugar Department of Uttarakhand. The petitioner subsequently received a notice dated 18.2.2012 from the respondent department as to why his services be not terminated in terms of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in State of Uttaranchal v. Alok Sharma and others. On 29.2.2012, the petitioner sought further 15 days time to give his reply and also sought copy of the said judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court on which reliance was being placed by the Sugar Department. Instead of giving time, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent authority vide order dated 15.3.2012.

(3.) THE petitioner's case is somewhat different from the aforesaid employees. Firstly, the petitioner was not a party in the above writ petitions or a party before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The petitioner was not a person seeking absorption. He had already been absorbed way back in the year 1996 without any intervention of the Hon'ble Court. In the writ petition filed before this Court all he was seeking was a pay protection! Instead of giving him pay protection, his services have been dispensed with unceremoniously which is totally in violation of principle of natural justice and fair play as he was never given a copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court which was sought by the petitioner, and on the basis of which his services have been terminated. As far as giving fresh absorption is concerned, the same cannot be given in terms of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Alok Sharma and others : (2009) 7 SCC 647. Even if the respondents chose to follow the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of the petitioner and thereby dispense with his services they can do so, but only in accordance with law which means that a prior notice or show cause must be given to the petitioner. It is primarily on the non compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play that the validity of the impugned order dated 15.03.2012 cannot be sustained.