RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the oral termination order. A writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to regularise the petitioner on the post of Telephone Parichar has also been sought for.

(2.) According to the matrix of the petitioner's case, he was selected for appointment to the post of Telephone Parichar (Attendant) on 5.3.1986 by a Selection Committee duly constituted for the purpose. After his selection, he was appointed as Telephone Attendant on 1.8.1986 in leave arrangement of one Sri Jamil Ahmad who proceeded on marital leave. His appointment was to be valid until Sri Jamil Ahmad resumed his duty. Despite, that Jamil Ahmad never came back to take charge of his post. the petitioner's services were terminated in October. 1989, without any order in writing. He was paid his salary up to the month of November. 1988. but thereafter his salary was not disbursed in spite of his repeated requests to the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer, VIth Circle. Irrigation Department, Lucknow. He was a workman within the meaning of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act as he completed more than 240 days continuous service in a calendar year and further he was also entitled to be regualrised in view of the Government Order dated 7.2.1981. Apart that, many juniors to the petitioner are still working and the post on which he was appointed is still lying vacant. As a matter of fact, the petitioner's oral termination was arbitrary besides being vlolativc of principles of natural justice. The petitioner submitted several representations to the authorities but all his prayers went unheard. It was under these circumstances that he was obliged to file the present petition.

(3.) The State and other opposite parties had filed a counter-affidavit with a view to resist this petition but it remained untraceable for quite a long time and, therefore, eventually. the opposite parties were directed on 4.1.2001 to file a fresh counter-affidavit but no fresh counter-affidavit has been filed. As the matter was old, it was heard on 15.2.2001 and during the course of arguments, the learned State counsel pointed out that a copy of the counter-affidavit filed earlier is on the file of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel was then asked to submit the counter-affidavit on record. Thus, the counter-affidavit was reconstructed with the help of the learned counsel for both the parties.