AMBALAL JENAJI CHAUHAN Vs. INSPECTING OFFICER COURT FEES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was given only urgent temporary appointment on fixed term in the office of Inspecting Officer (Court Fees) of the High Court and Small Causes Court, and ex-officio Chief Inspector (Court Fees), Ahmedabad, filed this Special Civil Application and prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to (i) regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Peon and to give him all other benefits following therefrom and (ii) direct the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner and to allow him to perform his duties on the post of Peon without any disturbance.

(2.) From the facts which have come on record, it is no more in issue that the term of temporary appointment of the petitioner was last extended upto February 1989. This Special Civil Application has been filed by the petitioner on 13th March 1989. The day on which this Special Civil Application has been filed by the petitioner, he was no more in service. In view of this fact, the second prayer made by petitioner in this Special Civil Application is not tenable. The services of the petitioner were terminated much earlier, may be by afflux of time, to the day on which this Special Civil Application has been filed. The first prayer is also equally of no substance. Unless the petitioner is successfully able to challenge the termination of his services, the question of giving direction to the respondent to regularize his service does not arise.

(3.) However, the Special Civil Application has been amended and further Civil Application No.8579 of 1991 has been filed by the petitioner for second amendment of the Special Civil Application. I considered the contents of the Civil Application and permitted the petitioner to make reference to the same during the course of arguments and in view of this fact, no order on the Civil Application is required to be made. By subsequent amendment as well as Civil Application, the petitioner sought to raise the further ground of challenge to the termination of his services. Though without amendment of the prayer in the Special Civil Application, this ground may not be available to the petitioner, but still taking into consideration the fact that the matter pertains to termination of services of a low paid employee, I overrule this technical bar and permitted the petitioner's counsel to raise all these submissions during the course of arguments.