RAM SINGAR YADAVS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were alleged to have been appointed in the posts of Mali-cum-Chowkidar on 16th June, 1992. The said appointments were found to be irregular by the Conservator of Forest, Gorakhpur, which is apparent from the order dated 29th June 1992 being Annexure-11, to the writ petition. Accordingly, the appointments were cancelled by an order dated 30th June, 1992, which is Annexure-12 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order of cancellation, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court being number Ml of 1992. By an order dated 27th August, 1992, the said writ petition was disposed of. A copy of the said order is Annexure-13 to the writ petition. In the said order, the order of cancellation was quashed on the ground that it was not an order of termination and was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice without giving any opportunity of hearing. In the said order, however, it was made clear that the respondent would be free to pass fresh similar orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It was made further clear that if the respondent No. 3 is of the view that a simple order of termination is to be passed, it can be done so even without giving any opportunity of hearing. Thereafter by an order dated 17th September. 1992 contained in Annexure-14, the services of the petitioners were terminated under the U. P. Temporary Government Servants' (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 without assigning any reason and without any stigma, giving one month's pay in lieu of notice. This order has since been challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) Mr. B. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in an Identical case which was involved in series of writ petitions, leading one being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16985 of 1984, which was involved in Special Appeal No. 653 of 1995, was decided by this Court on 10th December, 1997. He had produced a certified copy of the said order. Relying on the said decision, Mr. Srivastava contends that in the said case also financial constraint was pleaded as a ground against the proposal for regularlzation. In the present case, the petitioners' services were dispensed with on the ground of financial constraints. The facts of this case being identical with the case in volved in State of U. P. v. Putti Lal, Special Appeal No. 653 of 1995, disposed on 10th December, 1997, the petitioners should also be directed to be considered for regularization in the same manner. He further contends that the petitioners would be eligible for being so considered by reason of an interim order passed in this writ petition on 6th May. 1993 due to which they are continuing in service and due to which the petitioners are also similarly situated with those of the petitioners in the said writ petition. On these grounds, he contends that the writ petition should be allowed.

(3.) Mr. Shyam Sunder Sharma, learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that the case of the petitioner as made out in the present writ petition is completely distinguishable from the case cited by the counsel for the petitioner and there is no rationale, which could be compared having regard to the facts of the present case with reference to those of the other cases cited by the counsel for the petitioner. He had contended that in the present case, the appointment was made illegal and, therefore, it was sought to be cancelled. The said order having been challenged, was quashed with a liberty to pass fresh order. Fresh orders having been passed according to the liberty granted in the said decision, it is no more open to the petitioners to claim otherwise because the order is covered by the liberty granted in the decision in the writ petition moved by the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.