ANANT RAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was engaged as Road Roller Cleaner in Rural Engineering Service Department on daily wage basis. Subsequently, he was engaged for a fixed period of six months and his last such appointment was made by an order dated 17.12.1993 contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It is apparent that the petitioner had worked as such for sometime earlier. The petitioner's service was sought to be terminated by an order dated 4.3,1994 with immediate effect. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 10293 of 1994 by the petitioner. By an order dated 23.3.1994, operation of the said order was stayed. A copy of the said order is Annexure-5 to the writ, petition. It is alleged that the said Writ Petition No. 10293 of 1994 is still pending. The petitioner was thereafter informed by a letter dated 24.6.1994 that by the order dated 17.12.1993 the petitioner's appointment was for a period of six months and that the said period having expired, the petitioner was relieved. Copy of this 'order is Annexure-2 to the writ petition which has since been challenged herein.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the petitioner has been appointed regularly, his service could not be terminated in the manner it has been done. Even if it is treated to be an order of termination, in effect it was retrenchment which requires compliance with the provisions in respect of retrenchment Including payment of one month's notice or notice pay in lieu thereof. Neither one month's notice nor notice pay in lieu thereof, has been given to the petitioner, and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on two unreported Decisions, one rendered on 3.2.1997 in Writ Petition No. 22156 of 1990, Shiv Kumar v. State of U. P. and others and the other decision dated 20.12.1996 rendered in Writ Petition No. 31499 of 1990. between Raj Kumar Gupta and State of U. P. through Secretary Village Development, U. P.. Lucknow, contending that in identical situation, those orders were passed and, therefore, this writ petition should be disposed of in terms of the said orders.

(3.) Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that the appointment being a fixed term appointment, the petitioner cannot claim any right to continue after expiry of the fixed term stipulated in the order of appointment. He has relied on a decision in the case of Santosh Kumar v. State of U. P. and another, 1993 (1) UPLBEC 322 and Director Institute of Management Development. U. P. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 2070, in support of his contention.