ACHARJL TIWARL Vs. ZILA GANNA ADHIKARI AND ANOTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shashi Nandan learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) Matrix of the facts is that the petitioner Aohari Tiwari was serving as Seasonal clerk in Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Padrauna District Deoria having been appointed as such on 30-1-1966. He had put in about 27 years of service in the year. 1987 when his services were terminated by means of the order dated 15-6-1987 Likewise, petitioners P. Misra was serving as Seasonal Cashier in the aforesaid Samiti situate at Padrauna District Deoria having been appointed as such on the month of Nov. 1956. He had put in about 32 years of service in the year 1987 when his services were abruptly terminated by order dated 15-6-1987 in the purported exercise of power under Regulation 34 of the U.P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulation, 1975 which empowers the recruiting or appointing authority to terminate the services of a seasonal employee at any time on a week's notice or with a week's salary in lieu thereof. The regulation aforesaid further provides that it would not be attracted in the case of termination as a result of disciplinary proceeding or termination at the close of crushing season.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the orders terminating the petitioners' service under Regulation 34, have the taint of arbitrariness, in that there was nothing before the respondents enabling them to have adjudged the suitability of the petitioners or to have dispensed with their services as no longer required under Regulation 34 aforesaid. He has also contended before me that juniors to the petitioners, to mention few of them namely, Shambhu Misra and Vishwa Devi Pathak and some other as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application which as allowed by order dated 29th Aug., 1991 have been retained and that the posts on which the petitioners are working, have not been abolished. In the above perspective, it does not appeal to reason that the services of the petitioners were no longer required as stated in the impugned order of termination. In the case of Sumatl P. Shere Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1989 (SC) P. 1431 the Supreme Court has held that the services of even temporary or ad hoc employees cannot be terminated arbitrarily. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon a decision State of U.P. Vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla', UPLBEC 1991 (1) P. 152 wherein it has been laid down that the services of a temporary employee may be terminated in accordance with the relevant service rules and no opportunity i3 required to be given in such matters. In paragraph 9 of the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court has however observed that before passing an order of termination, the Competent Authority may hold enquiry in fairness to ascertain whether the temporary servant should be continued in service or not. No such enquiry having been held by the respondents before terminating the petitioner's services, I am of the opinion that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sumati P. Shere (supra), still holds good and the impugned order of termination is not sustainable in law.