ASHOK KUMAR AWASTHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner alleges that he was on medical leave since 3rd October, 1983 and had been applying for extension of such medical leave from time to time. Only when the petitioner sought to resume his duties after having become fit sometimes in 1992, he was informed that the petitioner's service was ter minated by an order dated 12th April, 1985. Then he made successive repre sentations which were rejected on 8th February, 1992 and 24th April, 1992. Thereupon, he had preferred an appeal before the Divisional Forest Officer, Varanasi who had rejected the same on 25th October, 1996. These orders are Annexures 34, 35, 37 and 52 respectively. These orders have since been challenged in this writ petition with a prayer that the petitioner should be reinstated from 3rd October, 1983.

(2.) MR. C. B. Yadava, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's service has been sought to be terminated under the U. P Temporary Government Service (Termination of Ser vice) Rules, 1975. Since according to him, the petitioner having completed the probation period, he shall be deemed to have been confirmed and, therefore, the 1975 Rules could not be applied in his case. Alternatively, he contended that even if the said Rules could be applied in the absence of one month notice pay in lieu of notice, the order of termination on 1975 Rules is violative of the proviso of Sub-rule 3 of the said Rules and such can not be sustained. He then contends that the petitioner had been making successive applications for extension of the medical leave which had never been replied to by the respondents necessarily implying that these applications were accepted and the medical leave was being extended. There fore, there could not be any occassion to terminate his service. He next contends that the alleged notice purported to have been served on the petitioner by the respondents before passing the order dated 12th April, 1985 had never been received by the petitioner. The alleged notice which was published in newspaper 'aaj', a newspaper published from Varanasi. According to him, the newspaper Aaj' had no circulation in Al lahabad in 1985. Therefore, the alleged publication cannot suffice the purpose of notice. He further contends that there was no delay or laches on the part of the petitioner since he had been applying for extension of leave till 1992 ; until he was informed that his service was terminated and then pursuing the remedy by way of approaching the respondents through representations which were turned down one after the other and against which he appealed to the Divisional Forest Officer which was dismissed only in 1994. Therefore, there was no delay on his part to approach this Court in 1996.

(3.) THE petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and was under probation for some period. THE Lower Subordinate Forest Service Rules, 1980 in Rule 19 prescribes the period of probation and in Rule 20 prescribes the manner of confir mation. Rule 19 prescribes that a person employed against a substantive vacancy shall be placed on probation for a period of two years which may be extended maxi mum to a further period of two years. It provides that in case, he is unable to utilise the period of probation properly in that event, his service may be dispensed with. Admittedly, in that present case, the petitioner's service has not been dispensed with under sub-rule (3) of Rule 19.