RAM RAJ PANDEY Vs. UPPER ZILA ADHIKARI PRASHASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri S.K. Chaubey, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.S. Maurya, as well as, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioners who are 4 in number, were appointed on ad hoc basis in Town Area Khamariya, district Varanasi. The petitioner No. 1 Ram Raj Pandey, petitioner No. 2 Rajendra Prasad Pandey, petitioner No. 3 Vijay Bahadur Patel and petitioner No. 4 Amar Bahadur Yadav were respectively appointed on the posts of Safai Naik, Water Tax Collection Amin, Lineman and Clerk. They are alleged to be working continuously on their respective posts right from the date of appointment. It is alleged that by an order dated 20.7.1991, the services of the petitioners have been dispensed with and they are not allowed to perform their duties. By means of the present writ petition, it is prayed that the order dated 20.7.1991, terminating the services of the petitioners, as orally stated by respondent No. 2, the Chairman Town Area Committee, be quashed and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be commanded not to interfere with the performance of duties by the petitioners.

(3.) in the counter affidavit it has been pleaded that the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis in addition to the sanctioned strength of the Committee; that the services of the petitioners were terminated after adopting a resolution by the committee on 20.7.1991 primarily on the ground that the financial position of the Town Area Committee was not sound and the services of the petitioners were no longer required. It has also been asserted that as against petitioner No. 1 Ram Raj Pandey, and petitioner No. 3 Vijai Bahadur Patel, there were complaints of negligence and carelessness in the performance of their duties. As regards petitioner No. 2 Rajendra Prasad Pandey and petitioner No. 4 Amar Bahadur Yadav, it has been asserted that they were appointed after the water supply scheme was transferee from Jal Nigam to the Town Area Committee. Petitioner No. 4 was appointed for preparing the bills of water tax while petitioner No. 2 was detailed for duty to realise the amount of water tax. Subsequently, water tax came to be realised with other taxes of the Committee and consequently, the services of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 were no longer required.