SRI MANORANJAN ROY Vs. SRI UMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GOVERNMENT of India introduced a Scheme by the name of "Prevention of Infiltration of Foreigners Scheme" (in short, PIF Scheme), for helping the State Government of Assam to detect and deport foreigners. The Scheme was introduced in the year 1960 and the same has been extended from time to time and is still in force. By a subsequent communication, dated 03.06.1987, the Government of India sanctioned some additional posts and agreed to reimburse the cost of pay and allowances of the persons, employed against the additional posts, provided that all the additional posts were filled up by ex -servicemen only. The later Scheme, granting additional posts, is being referred to as PIF Additional Scheme. On the basis of the PIF Scheme and Additional PIF Scheme, many persons, including the present petitioner, were appointed, the initial appointment of the present petitioner being, a constable, but he was, later on, appointed as Sub -Inspector of Police. Thereafter, a Circular, dated 17.03.1995, was issued by the Inspector General of Police (Border), Assam. Under the said Circular, all the appointments were contractual and for a period of one year. The appointments were to be terminated, under the said Circular, by giving a notice of termination, at least, 45 days before the expiry of the contractual period of one year from the date of appointment and if any ad hoc employee desired or expressed his willingness to continue, then, it was left to the authorities concerned to make fresh appointment or even to refuse to make such an appointment.

(2.) WHILE the petitioner was working as Sub -inspector, pursuant to the PIF Scheme and Additional PIF Scheme, his service was terminated on 28.12.2001 w.e.f. 04.10.2001. The petitioner challenged his termination of appointment by filing a writ petition, which gave rise to W.P. (C) 196 of 2002. By, order, dated 04.01.2005, a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that in another writ petition, when order of termination, in a case covered by the PIF and additional PIF Scheme, was interfered with by a Single Bench, the Division Bench of this Court set aside the order and upheld the termination.

(3.) AFTER the decision in the case of Abdul Kadir's case (supra), as indicated above, the present petitioner put to challenge, by way of Writ Appeal No. 387 of 2009, the order, dated 04.01.2005, whereby his writ petition, namely, W.P. (C) 196 of 2002, had been dismissed.