VIRENDRA PAL SINGH Vs. DISTRICT CANE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals arise out of common judgment dated 10th September 1992, passed by a learned judge of this Court, whereby the Court did not exercise Che discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, regarding services of the appellants as Seasonal Clerks.

(2.) THE appellants claimed that they were appointed as seasonal clerks by the Chairman. District Cane Services Authority, Rampur for Ganna Vikas Samiti. Vilaspur district Rampur by separate orders passed on 13-10-1986. Subsequently they were transferred to Ganna Samiti, Bilari District Moradabad by orders of the Deputy Cane Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad on 20-10-1986 THEy joined their dudes there but they were again transferred to the newly constituted Ganna Samiti, Gadarpur district Nainital by the orders of the Deputy cane Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad. THE appellants, after they were relieved from Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd, Bilari, gave their joining reports to the District Cane Officer, Haldwani. Nainital who posted them at Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Kichha, district Nainital on different dates between December 1987 and January 1988. Subsequently, the services of the appellants were terminated by the Special Secretary, Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Kichha, Nainital by order dated 10th June, 1988.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants firstly urged that the order of termination of the services of the appellants could not be passed by the Special secretary, Sahkari Ganna Samiti Ltd. Kichha, Nainital, as they were appointed by the District Cane Officer, Haldwani, district Nainital and in accordance with Regulation 34 of the U. P. Cane Cooperative Services Regulation 1975 (in short (the "Regulations" the services of an employee can be terminated only by appointing authority after giving him one week's notice or one week's salary in lieu thereof it terminated before close of the crushing season. Secondly the appointment letters were not forged and as the appellants had worked as seasonal clerks in the society they were entitled to continue in service even after the seasonal period came to an end.