ALOK SINHA Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both the aforesaid writ petitions counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and learned counsel for the parties are agreed that both the petitions may be disposed of finally at this stage, Sri Anil Kumar Tyagi, petitioner in second writ petition is also petitioner no. 40 in first petition. The common- questions of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions and they may be decided conveniently by a common judgment. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32980 of 1993 will be the leading case.

(2.) 40 petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32980 of 1993 are employed with respondent no. I Ghaziabad Development Authority as clerks, Pump operators, Peons etc. A chart giving date of employment and the posts on which petitioners are working has been filed as Annexure- 1 to the writ petition and perusal of the aforesaid chart shows that out of 40 petitioners 13 are working on their posts since 1990, 26 are working since 1991 and one is working since 1992. Petitioners are aggrieved by order of the Vice-Chairman of resp6ndent no. 1 dated 13th August, 1993 which is being reproduced below for better appreciation : "Dinank 29-12-89 ke bad ke samast W.C./D.W. Intard basic karma-charion ko hatakar 16-8-93 ko avagat karaen." D. K. Mittal Vice Chairman G.D.A. 13-8-93

(3.) I have seriously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. There cannot be any dispute that respondent no. 1 has a right to dispense with services of those employees whose services are not required in any of the projects and also in order to effect its economy but this right is not absolute and cannot be exercised in the manner it has been done by respondent no. 1 by passing the impugned order. This is rule of law in the country and every employee who is serving with respondent no. 1 for the last two three years is entitled to receive a specific order terminating him from service in accordance with law. In my opinion, this is the minimum requirement from the employer under Article 14 of the Constitution of India which guarantees fairness and reasonableness both at the time of recruitment as well as at the time of retrenchment of the employees. The respondent no. 1 being a statutory authority and State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, is expected to behave like a model employer and the services of all the Work Charge employees, Daily wager, muster roll etc. could not be dispensed with in block by a general order in the nature of the impugned order. In my opinion, the impugned order cannot stand the test of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.