RAM VINOD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THEY are heard. This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 11-7-2002 passed by the Jabalpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 869/96, by which the Tribunal has dismissed the application of the petitioner assailing the legality and propriety of the order (Annexure P-2), by which his appointment was terminated.

(2.) THE petitioner is a handicapped person who was granted contract appointment by the respondents by order (Annexure R-I), dated 30-7-96 on the post of Extra-Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM ). Soon thereafter, however, his appointment was terminated by the impugned order (Annexure P-2) without assigning any reason. Having failed in his challenge to the said termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the instant petition before this Court.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to the order of appointment and the provisions of rules namely; Post and Telegraphs Extra-Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', and submitted that even the contract appointment of the petitioner could not have been terminated without notice as per proviso to Rule 6 or without payment of an amount equivalent to the basic allowance plus dearness allowance for the period of notice. Attention has also been drawn to the statutory Form-II prescribed under Rule 6 which requires that the fact that the amount is being paid for the notice period be mentioned in the notice. The learned Counsel for the respondents, per contra, has submitted that even if it is found that there was absence of recital about the entitlement of the petitioner to receive a sum equivalent to the amount of the basic allowance plus dearness allowance for the period of notice, the petitioner can, at the most, claim allowance for the notice period only.