LAWS(GAU)-2005-8-29

TENZIN TSETIM Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

Decided On August 19, 2005
TENZIN TSETIM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first three writ petitions have been filed by 104 numbers of petitioners making a grievance against the same set of action taken by the respondents against them towards termination of their services on the ground of their appointments being illegal and void ab initio. The remaining three writ petitions have been filed by the same very petitioners claiming payment of their salary stated to be payable from July, 2004 till termination of their services with effect from 15. 3. 2005. All the writ petitions were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) W. P. (C) No. 166 (AP)/05 has been filed by four petitioners making a challenge to Annexure-11 series orders dated 15. 3. 2005 by which their services under the respondents have been terminated. They were appointed by Annexure-2 series orders dated 10. 11. 2003, 2. 2. 2000, 3. 12. 1999 and 15. 9. 2003 respectively. Their such appointments were in the capacity of Nursing/sanitary Assistant. All of them were appointed on compassionate ground. When the petitioners were continuing in their services, show-cause notice dated 17. 12. 2004 were issued to them individually alleging conspiracy on their part with the concerned officers/officials of the office of the District Medical Officer (DMO) under whom they were appointed and serving. It was alleged that all of them were appointed without any sanctioned post and their such appointments were in violation of existing rules and procedure. It was indicated that the DMO who had issued the appointment order in their favour was not competent to appoint the petitioners on behalf of the Government without there being any sanctioned post. The petitioners were directed to furnish their respective replies within 7 days.

(3.) ON receipt of the said notice individually served on the petitioners, they submitted their show cause replies on 22. 12. 2004 highlighting as to how they were appointed by the aforementioned appointment orders. In their show cause replies they had stated they had been serving under the respondents like any other regular appointee. They pleaded that they were not aware of the rules and regulations and as to whether there was any sanctioned post or not and also as to who was the authority to make appointment.