SURYA NATH SINGH Vs. CANE COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a temporary auditor Co-operative Societies and Panchayat in the Cane Department of the State Government. In 1972 the U.P. Co-operative Cane Union Federation made him an offer for appointment on the post of Accounts Officer (Fertilizer). He accepted this appointment and was relieved by his appointing authority on 19-7-1972. Thereafter he continued to serve under the Federation. On 4-9-1974 an order was passed in the Governments Cane Department confirming him in his original post with effect from 26-1-1966. Thereafter on 26-10-1973 an order was passed requiring him to come back to the parent department. This was followed up by three reminders, the last being dated 17-2-1979 & On 6-2-1979 the petitioner wrote back that he had been continuing since 1972 to serve under the Federation and that as he had still not been confirmed by the Federation, his lien in the Government's Cane Department should be retained. He further prayed that in case this request was not to be acceded, he may be treated as having voluntarily retired on the expiry of a period of three months under Fundamental Rule 56 (1) (c). This was reiterated by the petitioner in his letter dated 24-11-1979. This was replied to by the appointing authority on 9-4-1980 and it was stated, it seems, incorrectly that the petitioner did not fulfil the conditions of voluntary retirement. He was asked again to join the department by 15-5-1980. The petitioner replied back on 19-6-1980 pointing out that he did fulfil the conditions for voluntary retirement and asking the appointing authority to reconsider the matter. Thereafter on 19-7-1982 he was recalled from deputation and posted as Auditor in his parent department and on 20-7-1982 the Cane Federation also ordered him to be relieved and ordered to go back in the parent department. Aggrieved by these orders the petitioner has come to this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The petitioners contention is two fold; firstly he has contended that he was not on deputation at all and that his link with the Government Department stood snapped since he was substantively appointed by the Cane Federation in 1972. Secondly, it is in the alternative, that even if he was to be treated as on deputation then after having served a notice for voluntary retirement it was not open to the appointing authority not to treat him having voluntarily retired or to insist on his coming back to the parent department.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Pradeep Kant who has argued the case with ability and tenacity and has placed the entire material fairly before us.