BHIKHABHAI N SOLANKI Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23rd Sept. 1987 at Annexure "I" to the petition, issued by the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Panchayat Division No.1, Palanpur, terminating his service with effect from 30th Sept. 1987, from the post of work-charge clerk. In view of the interim relief which was granted in terms of paragraph 12(b) and (c) on 30th Sept. 1987 and which has been continued, the petitioner seems to have continued in that post.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed on 12.1.1983 as a work-charge clerk in the pay-scale of Rs. 260-400, by an order which is at Annexure "A" to the petition. That order clearly refers to the select list of 1982, on the basis of which the petitioner was appointed alongwith others on a temporary basis as work-charge clerk. The initial appointment was made by the Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Division of the District Panchayat, Palanpur. Thereafter, by order dated 19.9.1983, which is at Annexure "B" to the petition issued by the Executive Engineer, he was posted vice one C.G. Rathod at Danta. However, the Deputy Engineer, Irrigation Sub-division, Danta, did not allow him to resume his duty and informed him that he had moved the Divisional office for giving him posting at some other place. Thus, while he was relieved on 13.9.1983 for resuming at Danta, he was not allowed to resume at Danta and had to remain in a state of suspended animation. He sent an application on 1.10.1983 to the respondent No.3 for giving him a suitable post, without any adequate response from the respondent No.3. As his juniors were continuing, the petitioner approached Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal for reinstatement from 1.10.1983 with consequential benefits. The appeal was however, withdrawn from the Tribunal, in view of the stipulation that his appeal before the District Development Officer would be disposed of within a month. However, he was not given any posting, though a period of three months elapsed and in response to his letter dated 30th May, 1986, he was asked to make a representation to the respondent No.2, which he made, but with no avail. He therefore, filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 5139/86, in which all the respondents were also impleaded. On 24.12.1987, that petition was disposed of on a statement which was made by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, who included the District Development Officer as well as the Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Division. The statement which was made on behalf of the respondents was that the petitioner will be given preferential treatment in the matter of reemployment and that his seniority will be reckoned on the basis of the select list of 1981, wherein he was placed at serial No.18. It was stated on behalf of the petitioner by his counsel that the petitioner would not press for backwages. A statement was also made that a posting order was already given to the petitioner. That order appears to have been made on 14.2.1987. Thus, it came to be crystalised that the petitioner will be continued in service on the basis of his seniority emanating from his position in the select list of 1981. However, within a few months after his reinstatement, his services were again terminated by order dated 23.9.1987, which has been challenged.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that the impugned order of his termination made on 23.9.1987 could not have been made in view of the statement which was made on behalf of the respondents, that the seniority of the petitioner would be reckoned on the basis of the select list of 1981, in which he was at serial No.18 and therefore, the impugned order was illegal and unwarranted.