AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. COMMISSIONER CONSOLIDATION LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri R. B. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. The case was listed on twelve occasions and on 16.1.2001, six weeks' time was allowed with a stop order that no more time shall be allowed to file counter-affidavit. On 3.12.2001 also on humble request on behalf of the learned standing counsel, six weeks' time was allowed with another stop order that no more time would be allowed to file counter-affidavit. At this stage also, there is no instructions on behalf of learned counsel for the respondents to enable him to file the counter-affidavit. Therefore, this petition is disposed of on the material available on records. Though the counter and rejoinder-affidavits have not been exchanged, however, now with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage on the basis of material available on records and proceedings of the petition in reference to second proviso of Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the High Court Rules, 1952.

(2.) By this writ petition, the termination order dated 24.11.1983 passed under U. P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (in short called 'Rules 1975' hereinafter), has been challenged.

(3.) The facts for adjudication of the writ petition are that the father of the petitioner died on 2.5.1986 during the service while serving in the consolidation office of State of U. P. On the representation, the Commissioner, Consolidation has sanctioned the appointment on 25.6.1987 under U. P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (in short called Rules, 1974). In view of the above order, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Varanasi has Issued appointment order dated 4.7.1987 appointing the petitioner at Class IV employee in the department on temporary basis (Annexure-2) to the writ petition. The petitioner fell ill on 4.10.1988 and could not attend the office, therefore, he sent an application for medical leave to the respondent No. 3/Settlement Officer. It appears that the same did not reach the respondent, therefore, the petitioner received a notice dated 4.11.1988 (Annexure-4) to the writ petition by which the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within 5 days. The above notice dated 4.11.1988 was received by the petitioner on 15.11.1988, and as such, the petitioner sent a reply dated 20.11.1988, requesting the authority concerned to sanction medical leave to the petitioner from 5.10.1988 to 30.11.1988. The respondent No. 3/Settlement Officer passed an order dated 24.11.1988 (Annexure-6) to the writ petition terminating the services of the petitioner which is the impugned order in the writ petition.