LAWS(MPH)-2004-4-21

RAM RAJ MARAN Vs. DISASTER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

Decided On April 16, 2004
RAM RAJ MARAN Appellant
V/S
DISASTER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS, three in number, were appointed as Gardener, Cook and Orderly respectively under the respondent No. 1, Disaster Management Institute, Bhopal, which functions in the department of the State Government. A document contained in Annexure P-1 has been brought on record showing the position of filled up pots and vacant posts against the sanctioned posts set up as on 31-3-1995. The name of the petitioners have been mentioned at Serial Nos. 24 to 26, The petitioners have brought on record the memorandum of association and regulations of the Disaster Management Institute (DMI ). Though the petitioners were appointed vide orders contained in Annexure P-3 to Annexure P-5 in the year 1989 on different dates, the appointments are similar in nature. The appointments convey that the petitioners were appointed temporarily until further orders on the posts with effect from either July or September, 1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 725-10-735-12-835-15-900 with a further stipulation that the said appointments could be terminated by giving one month notice by either side or one month pay in lieu thereof. While the petitioners were serving in their respective posts vide orders contained in Annexure P-7 to Annexure P-9 their services were terminated on the ground that they were not appointed against sanctioned posts; they were not holding skilled posts; and they were beyond set up.

(2.) IT has been asserted in the petition that the orders passed vide Annexures P-7 to P-9 suffer from vitiation as there has been non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that as the petitioners were enjoying temporary status for almost ten years they could not have been thrown over board without asking to show cause. It is urged that they were not daily wagers but appointed against sanctioned posts in a regular pay-scale and, therefore, compliance of the principle of natural justice was a pre-requisite for passing of any adverse order. It is also put forth that in the impugned orders they were treated to be in the staffing pattern as postulated by the State Government though the petitioners were never apprised of anything of that sort and they knew that they were appointed on temporary status in the regular pay scale and, therefore, the introduction of the new conception is impermissible.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy the DMI was constituted to help the victims and to avoid the future tragedy assistance of Royal Norwegian Embassy was sought as the scheme required skilled employees and not incompetent persons like the petitioners. It is also urged that the respondent No. 1 showed in the order of appointments that the petitioners' services would be liable to be terminated with one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof and as the same has been done the order of termination putting an end to the services of the petitioners can not be found fault with. It is also submitted that initially the aid which was coming from the State Government was stopped and, therefore, the society (DMI) can not be regarded as aided society and, therefore, the claim of the petitioners against the society can not lie under Article 226 of the Constitution. That apart, it has also been highlighted that when the petitioners were working in non-existing posts, their right to claim to be reinstated in service on the ground that there has been violation of principle of natural justice is untenable inasmuch as they were appointed de hors the rules and against the concept of sanctioned or existing posts. It is also put forth in the counter-affidavit that the management of the society followed the principle of first come last go and as the petitioners were juniors, they were asked to leave being latter appointees. That apart, it has also been set forth that all the petitioners were appointed after 31-12-1988 and as per the circular dated 14-14999 of the State Government, petitioners services were terminated.