SURENDRA TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. According to the petitioner, he was engaged on the post of Nikashi Munshi/clerk in north Kheri forest division on 23. 11. 1977 as daily wager employee. Since then he has been working continuously. It has been stated that almost every year fresh orders were issued from time to time. Lastly he was appointed on 1. 6. 1986 as daily wager and since then he had worked continuously till the date of his termination. According to the petitioner's Counsel petitioner's services has been dispensed with by oral order on 11. 8. 1989.

(2.) THE submission of the petitioner's Counsel is that at the time when services of the petitioner Were dispensed with, several persons junior to the petitioner were working in the same region and oral order was passed without following the principle of first come last go It has also been pleaded in the writ petition that order was passed in violation of provisions of section 6n and other provisions of the UP. Industrial Disputes Act without making payment of any compensation. In response to averments contained in the writ petition it has been stated by the respondents in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the; counter-affidavit that services of the petitioner were dispensed with because of paucity of fund. It has been further stated that all the daily wager employees working in the office and export chauki were discontinued because of shortage of fund. It has been stated in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit that no seniority list was prepared by the respondents and for any grievance petitioner may approach the competent authority. From the pleadings on record it appears that petitioner's contention relating to discharge of duty since 1977 till 1989 has not been denied by the respondents categorically. Only defence taken by the respondents is that only because of paucity of fund services of the petitioner were dispensed with and no seniority list has been maintained by the department of the daily wager employees. From the evidence on record it appears that petitioner had worked for about 13 years before his services were dispensed with. It was duty of the authorities to maintain list of daily wager employees so that in case contingencies require or because of non-availability of fund, if department wants to retrench the employees then proper action could have been taken in accordance to law by following the principles of first come last go. Termination of service by an oral order is an autocratic way of functioning of some Government officers which is not permissible in a democratic set-up. In case services of the petitioner and other daily wager employees were dispensed with then the speaking order should have been passed by the authorities indicating the reasons. Non-disclosure of reason or direction for dissolution of service by oral order is highly arbitrary, unjust and improper act and does not fulfil the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Justness and reasonableness of an order is the hallmark of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and every order which is arbitrary, unjust and improper shall suffer from voice of arbitrariness and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, in view of admitted facts on record since the petitioner's services were dispensed with orally after lapse of almost 13 years by the department, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.