RAKESH SAXENA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the order of termination dated 3rd May, 1984 (Annexure -F) and also the order dated 3rd September, 1997 (Annexure R) may kindly be quashed and the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and all other consequential benefits.

(2.) IT is an unfortunate that a man with high qualifications, could not survive in the organisation. The incumbent was a Bachelor of Science - - University of Rewa (MP); Bachelor of Architecture - - University of Roorkee; Diploma in Management, Delhi; Master of City and Regional Planning - - University of California at San luis California, USA; Member Armerical Planning Association (USA); Member Kuwait Society of Engineers, Kuwait; Member Indian Institute of Architect, India and member Indian Institute of Planner, India, etc. He was initially appointed temporarily until further orders as Regional and City Planner in the pay scale of Rs. 1100 -1500/ - along with other allowances in the Environmental Planning and Coordination Organisation. Thereafter, he was ordered to work as controlling officer for all Administrative as well as Technical matters. Thereafter, the State of Madhya Pradesh revived M.P. Vikas Pradhikaran Sangh, Bhopal and fresh order dated 30.4.1984 was passed appointing the petitioner as Executive Director in the pay scale of Rs. 1100 -1500/ -. It was also mentioned in the order that his services can be terminated at any time with one month notice. If, however, he fails to give one month notice, one month salary shall be forfeited in lieu of notice. Thereafter, his services were terminated from EPCO w.e.f. 1.4.1984. However, he was continued in M.P. Vikas Pradhikaran Sangh, but his temporary appointment was also not confirmed by the Board of Director of M.P. Vikas Pradhikaran Sangh. Thereafter, his services were terminated with one month notice as no longer required and in lieu thereof, a cheque of Rs. 3696/ - was sent to him by letter dated 3.9.1987. Hence, the petitioner has challenged this order/letter by filing the instant petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by Annexure H dated 28th July, 1984, he has been confirmed by the Board of Directors. I have perused that order and from this, it does not appear that the services of the incumbent have been confirmed on the post. However, his temporary appointment has to be approved by the Board of Directors and it was essentially made under the orders of the Vice -President of MPVPS and it was clear that the services of the incumbent can be terminated by giving one months notice by either side. In terms of the appointment order, the services of the incumbent has now been terminated and, therefore, the grievance made by the petitioner has to merit. The learned counsel has pointed out that the petitioner has not brought on record any order showing that he has been confirmed on the post of Executive Director. Rather Annexure H dated 28th July, 1984 has been placed on record and in that also, the incumbent has been shown as an officiating. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that Annexure H amounts to confirmation of the petitioner, does not appear to be correct. Since the incumbent was not confirmed employee, as such his services has been terminated by giving one month notice in terms of the appointment order. Hence, there is no merit in this petition had the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. The amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner.