HARKANTA DAS Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The office order dated 28.10.1997 bearing No. EGH/Estt/18787/PM 1/203- A terminating the petitioner from his services as Bearer of Circuit House, Williamnagar, with effect from 28.10.97 afternoon , is the subject matter under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) According to Mr. Goswami , the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner hailed from a very poor family and abandoned his studies when he was reading in Class VII in search of service or any work so as to earn his livelihood and luckily, in the last part of the year 1988, he got employment as Grade IV casual employee in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, the third respondent herein, for a period from 16.12.1988 to 28.2.1989 in the fixed pay of Rs.450/- p.m. initially and thereaf ten, he had been engaged for the said services after expiry of the initial period of appointment under various appointment orders of 25.4.89, 24.8.89, 9.11.89 and 20112.89 in the same post and in the same scale, and , after completion of one year's satisfactory service as casual worker, the respondent No.3 appointed the petitioner as Peon vide order dated 25.1.1990 with effect from 29.1.1990 in the pay scale of Rsi.820-1175/p.m (Annexure F). He was once terminated on 6.4.1990 from service but on the same date, itself, he was further appointed by isuing another order for a poriod of 3 months in the same post as Mali (Annexure G and H) and since 6.4.1990, the services of the petitioner had been utilised by the respondent No. 3 under various orders isssued from time to time and he continued upto 11.7.95 as casual employee or sometimes engaged in leave vacancy and sometimes he had been engaged by the respondent No.3 as his personal Peon as seen in the document marked Arnnexure I,J,K,L,M,N and O respectively. The petitioner also appeared for Interview/Viva Voice test conducted by the District Selection Committee,Williamnagar, for regularisation of his services or appointment to the Grade IV post and he was selected and, thereafter, his case was recommended for regularisation under a re- lated letter dated 11.7.95 (Annexure P) and accordingly, he was appointed by the respondent No. 3. to the post of Bearer of Circuit House Vide office letter/order dfated 11.7.95 in the scale of pay of Rs. 820-1175/-p.m plus other allowances admissible under the Rules, as seen in the document marked Annexure O to the writ petiltion. But, he was terminated from services with immediate effect under the impugned order of 28.10.97 (Annexure R).

(3.) It is also asserted that the petitioner had rendered services for the period from 16.12.1988 to 28.10.1997 thus completing the service of almost 9 years under the respondent No. 3 and now, he is barred by age for any other service. It is also argued by Mr. Goswami that one Shri Jenosh Sangma was also appointed in the same post with the petitioner under a related order dated 23.4.1989 is still working/ssrv- ing, but the petitioner has not been allowed to continue in his service which is voilative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to Mr. Goswami, the impugned order of termination is arbitrary, unjust and whimsical and the same is violative of the principles of natural justice.