MATA DEEN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. It transpires that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 4-5-1991. The petitioner approached the U. P. State Commission for Backward Class in the year 1999. The Commission by an order dated 16-8- 2004 recommended the District Magistrate to reinstate the petitioner on the ground that the order of termination was in violation of the principles of natural justice.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the non-implementation of the order of the Commission, the petitioner approached this Court which was disposed of with a direction to the Collector to decide the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner's representation was rejected by an order dated 28-6-2005. The Collector held that the petitioner not only absconded but had abandoned his services and consequently his services was terminated on 4-5-1991.

(3.) THE services of the petitioner was terminated in the year 1991. No explanation has been given by the petitioner in the writ petition as to what steps he had taken with regard to his alleged termination from 1991 onwards. THE petitioner has relied upon a sentence in the order of the Commission which indicates that the order of termination dated 4-5-1991 was delivered to the petitioner after 8 years in the year 1999. I am not inclined to believe this statement. THE petitioner has nowhere indicated that from 1991 to 1999 he remained in service and that he was working and that he was receiving his salary. In the absence of these averments, the contention of the petitioner that he received the order of termination in the year 1999 is not believable. THE Collector in the impugned order clearly held that the petitioner had abandoned his services and consequently his services was terminated in the year 1991.