ROHITAS SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order of termination of his services dated 24.3.1998, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He has further prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to function as Executive Officer, Class IV in Nagar Palika Parishad with a further prayer to command the opposite parties to issue a modified appointment order thereby indicating the fact that the petitioner is appointed under the Dying-in-Harness Rules after relaxing the conditions which come in the way of regular appointment of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner's father, late Sri Bheem Sen Sharma, was the Executive Officer in Nagar Palika, Rudrapur, district Nainital. While working on the said post, he died in a car accident near Bhojipura, district Bareilly on 22.2.1993 when he was on duty and was going along with Additional District Magistrate (Nazul) Nainital in a car. The mother of the petitioner, Srimati Chandrawati Sharma (the wife of the deceased) submitted a representation to the State Government on 3.3.1993 requesting therein that her eldest son. Rohitas Sharma, the petitioner, be given the benefit of the Dying-in-Harness Rules and be appointed on the post of Executive Officer, Class III in any Nagar Palika. Thereafter she submitted another representation on 18.3.1993 and a reminder on 24.3.1993. When nothing was done by the opposite parties, she submitted a memorandum to his Excellency the Governor of Uttar Pradesh on 9.4.1993 mentioning therein that in similar circumstances, a large number of dependents of the employees who have died in-harness, have been given appointment and, therefore, her son, the petitioner, Rohitas Sharma, be given appointment on the post of Executive Officer, Class III in any Nagar Palika. She had also pointed out the names of those persons who had been given appointment in similar circumstances under Rule 31 of the U. P. Palika Centralised Services Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) on the post of Executive Officer, Class II, such as Sarvashri S. K. Singh, Anupam Shukla, Anil Kumar and Munindra Singh Rathore. After considering the said memorandum dated 9.4.1993, the then Governor of Uttar Pradesh was pleased to pass an order dated 24.4.1993 directing the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner on the post of Executive Officer, Class III under Rule 31 of the Rules. When the compliance of the said orders of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh was not done, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 5940 (SS) of 1993 before this Court wherein by order dated 3.8.1993 this Court directed the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment or to show cause. The opposite parties neither complied with the orders of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh dated 24.4.1993 nor did they comply with the orders of this Court dated 3.8.1993 passed in Writ Petition No. 5940 (SS) of 1993. In the meantime, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh was changed and the new Governor of Uttar Pradesh passed an order dated 27.11.1993 reiterating the orders dated 24.4.1993 passed by the earlier Governor of Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter the petitioner was issued an appointment letter dated 13.3.1996 appointing him on the post of Executive Officer, Class IV in the pay scale of Rs. 1,400-2,300 under Rule 31 of the Rules and posting him in Nagar Palika Parishad, Srinagar, district Pauri Garhwal, but the petitioner's appointment was made on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till regularly selected candidate joins, whichever is earlier. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from Srinagar to Nagar Palika Parishad, Vikas Nagar, district Dehradun, by order dated 1.7.1996. Thereafter no extension was given to the appointment of the petitioner and the services of the petitioner stood terminated on 31.10.1996 although regularly selected candidates from the U. P. Public Service Commission were not available. Then the petitioner filed another Writ Petition No. 6852 (SS) of 1996 wherein this Court on 7.11.1996 passed the following order :

(3.) In paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties, all the above mentioned facts have been admitted but thereafter in further paragraphs, it has been mentioned that the petitioner was not given appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules but was appointed under Rule 31 of the Rules on ad hoc basis and his services were rightly terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment order dated 13.3.1996. It is further mentioned that the petitioner was not appointed in compliance of the orders of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 6852 (SS) of 1996. It has been further mentioned in the counter-affidavit that in accordance with Government Order dated 5.11.1992, the petitioner could be offered appointment only on a non-centralised post, therefore, by order dated 24.3.1993 he was offered appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules on a non-centralised post upon which the petitioner did not join. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 1105 of 1996 has made observations deprecating the ad hoc appointments made under Rule 31 of the Rules from time to time ; therefore, the services of the petitioner on the post of Executive Officer Class-IV were terminated by the impugned order dated 24.3.1998. Therefore, the termination of the services of the petitioner is in accordance with law.