NAMDEO YADAORA DHAKATE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges judgment dated 28.03.2002 delivered by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dismissing T.A. No.784 of 1992. This transfer application was initially presented to this Court as Writ Petition No.666 of 1986. Challenge in said matter before this Court and thereafter before the MAT was to an order of termination dated 31.03.1986 issued by respondent No.2. As per that order, his services were sought to be terminated w.e.f. 04.04.1986 after holding that his performance was found most unsatisfactory. In Writ Petition No.666/1986, this Court stayed the order of termination on 03.04.1986, and hence, petitioner continued in service. After constitution of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, said Writ Petition was transferred to its Nagpur Bench where it came to be registered as Transfer Application No.784/1992. While dismissing that Transfer Application on 28.03.2002, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has found order of termination simpliciter in nature and petitioner was found to be appointed as an ad hoc employee purely on temporary basis. Because of this finding, it dismissed the Transfer Application.

(2.) Petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing the instant petition on 10.04.2002. It appears that the matter could not be heard till 17.05.2002, and in the meanwhile, respondent No.2 vide order dated 07.05.2002 brought an end to his service. Consequential order was issued by respondent No.3 on 08.05.2002 &. Petitioner was relieved. He amended his Writ Petition on 22.05.2002 to incorporate challenge to this order dated 07.05.2002 and 08.05.2002. It is in this background, that we have heard Shri Chitaley, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Lonare, learned A.G.P. for respondents.

(3.) Learned Advocate Shri Chitaley for the petitioner by placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and another, 2002 AIR(SC) 23 and in the case of V. P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab and others, 2000 AIR(SC) 1080 submits that, mere finding that the petitioner was an Ad hoc temporary employee is not answer to the order of termination dated 31-03-1986. According to him, the order is stigmatic and on that ground only needed to be quashed and set aside. He further submits that because the petitioner demanded his salary for the month of November, 1985, he is being victimized. On 03-01-1986, he was given time of one month to improve and on 18-02-1986 there was a direction to hold preliminary enquiry. One Shri Shirke conducted that enquiry and on 13-03-1986, about the work of the petitioner, he has put the remark "fair". There is no other enquiry and no other grading of the work of the petitioner. After this report, within 17 days the impugned order of termination came to be issued. It is, thus, for the false reasons.