GHANSHYAM SHARDE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Sudhanshu V. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Neelam Abhyankar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents-State. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 30-7-2010, by which his services have been put to an end.

(2.) Petitioner's contention is that his real brother was murdered by certain persons on 19-2-2009 and he was the sole bread winner of the family. The respondent State in light of the policy issued by the State Government dated 28-8-2003 has granted appointment to the petitioner as a daily-wager. The petitioner's contention is that certain persons were subjected to trial for killing his brother and have been acquitted by the learned Special Sessions Judge, vide judgment of acquittal dated 10-5-2010. The petitioner has further stated that the learned Sessions Judge has directed the State Government to withdraw all the benefits extended to the family. The petitioner's contention is that without hearing the petitioner and without issuing a show cause notice of any kind, the impugned order has been passed putting an end the services of the petitioner and, therefore, as the impugned order has been passed without following the principle of natural justice and fair play deserves to be set aside.

(3.) Reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the State Government is that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wager, on account of murder of his brother which took place on 19-2-2009 and as the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment of acquittal dated 10-5-2010 has directed the State Government to withdraw all the benefits extended to the family, hence the impugned order dated 30-7-2010 has been passed. It has been stated that on account of statements given by the family members of the deceased, learned Special Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused persons and, therefore, in compliance of the order passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, the order granting the benefit to the petitioner has been withdrawn and his services have been put to an end. The respondent State has prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.