LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-140

RAM ASRAY Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

Decided On March 11, 2004
RAM ASRAY Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT JUDGE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.9.2003, by which the writ petition of the petitioner-appellant against the order of termina-tion of his services dated 22.11.2000 has been dismissed.

(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner-appellant has been appointed as the Driver by the learned District Judge, Bijnor on Ad hoc basis vide appointment letter dated 1.11.1991. A post of Jeep Driver was created vide order dated 1st May, 1999 and appellant was appointed on temporary basis. His services stood terminated vide order dated 22.11.2000 by the learned District Judge, Bijnor under Rule 3 of U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1975) by giving one month's notice. Petitioner-appellant challenged the validity thereof. However, the petition stood dismissed. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Dr. R.G. Padia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant has submitted that as the appellant had been working for a long time and even after termination of his services vide order dated 22.11.2000, he continued to hold the post under the interim order of this Court dated 15.12.2000 and in the meanwhile the U.P. Government promulgated the Rules for regularisation of the services of those employees who had been working for 3 years within the dates mentioned therein, petitioner-appellant was entitled to be considered for regularisation. More so, while the appellant was working under the interim order of the Court, he had been served the charge-sheet and after holding the enquiry, 5 annual grade increments had been withheld, meaning thereby the subsequent order of imposing the punishment vide order dated 23.6.2001 had superseded the earlier order of termination. Therefore, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. Petitioner-appellant has also filed an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC. For taking the documents on record, particularly, regarding holding the enquiry and imposing the punishment vide order dated 23.6.2001. The said application be allowed and appeal of the petitioner-appellant deserves to be allowed and the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.