GULJAR RAM Vs. COMMISSIONER FAIZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these cases the petitioners are untrained Lekhpals. They were appointed on an ad-hoc basis to meet the immediate needs of the administration The training school established by the Government did not function for three years, namely 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78. thus the government was short of trained persons for appointment as Lekhpals. It was to meet this contingency that ad hoc appointments were made. Training school ultimately resumed functioning from the session 1978-79. The Board of Revenue decided to give opportunity to some untrained Lekhpals, who fulfilled certain conditions, to get themselves trained with a view to their absorption on regular basis. The petitioners are amongst them. Although they were temporary government servants and their services could, if the authorities so liked, be dispensed with by one month's notice or on expiry of the term of their appointment, as the case may be, the fact remains that their services have not actually been dispensed with. The result is that they continue to be government servants. However, the Board of Revenue has directed that no emoluments shall be paid to these petitioners during the period of training. It is aginst this direction that the petitioners have come to this court under Article 226 of the constitution.

(2.) THE only justification advanced on behalf of the State for not paying them the emoluments is that if they had been trained in the Lekhpal Training School prior to their' appointment they would not have received any emoluments for the period of their training. THEre is no provision for "in-service" training for Lekhpals. THE only provision is for "pre- service" training. Accordingly, on the basis of the parity with the persons who would have been initially appointed after receiving the training, these persons who had already been appointed on temporary/ad-hoc basis are also being denied any emoluments for the period of the training.

(3.) WE are proceeding on the assumption that the service of the petitioners have not already been terminated. If any termination orders have actually been passed the benefit of our decision herein will not be available to them.