BIRJESH KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT CANE OFFICER BIJNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed by the Assistant Registrar and District Cane Officer, Bijnor on 30. 9. 1986 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). The appointment order states that since the progress of Co-operative Cane Development Union Ltd. Nagina (hereinafter referred to as the Cane Development Union) regarding preparation of the records is slow and the office has not completed the details of the ledger and has not prepared the working statements and other records and a delay is being caused fn the preparation of the records, therefore, for completing the aforesaid records, the petitioner is appointed in the pay scale of seasonal clerk in the Cane Development Union under Rule 365 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) The Secretary of the Cane Development Union will take work from him according to the requirement and will report the progress to this effect.

(2.) The petitioner has stated in his petition that the petitioner continued to work as a seasonal clerk and by order, dated 20. 6. 1988, the Secretary of the Cane Development Union terminated the petitioner's services along with other seasonal clerks by giving one month's notice. The termination order his been passed in respect of 27 persons which also contains the name of the petitioner The termination order says that since the season of the year 1987-88 has come to an end, therefore, the services of the persons mentioned in the order are no more required

(3.) After a lapse of more that 3? years, the petitioner challedged his order of termination. The petitioner has stated in his writ petition that since in similar circumstances, the services of a seasonal clerk was terminated by the Secretary, Sabkari Cane Development Union Ltd. Najibabad, district Bijaor and the said rder was challenged in this Court in Civil Misc Writ Petition No 19665 of 1989 Rohitashwa Singh v The District Cane Officer, Bijnor and another, and this Court, vide its judgment, dated 25.9. 1991 has allowed the writ petition and has quashed the termination order and has also directed that the petitioner shall be entitled for his past emoluments, the petitioner along with many other seasonal clerks, whose services were terminated sent representations to the then Chief Minister, U. P. that their cases may be reconsidered and they may be re-appointed, and the Additional Commissioner, vide his circular, dated 22 4 1991 has directed the Dy. Cane Commissioner of Mora tabad Mandal for re employment of the seasonal clerks and other employees whose services have been terminated The petitioner has contended that thereafter the petitioner had been running from pillar to post but no orders were passed for his re-employment Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging bis order of termination.