STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. JOGINDER SINGH CLERK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JOGINDER Singh, writ-petitioner (now respondent in the present L. P A.) was appointed as a Clerk for a period of six months on 17th May, 1966 by the Chief Medical Officer, Hoshiarpur, en a purely ad hoc basis. On 17th October, 1966, the Chief Medical Officer, vide Annexure P-7, recommended to the Director, Health Services, Punjab, to request the Secretary, Subordinate Service Selection Board, Chandigarh, to approva the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis. It was further requested that in the meantime, the petitioner be allowed to continue in service so that the work of the Accounts Branch may not suffer. However, the service of the writ petitioner wore terminated by order dated 8th November, 1973 (Annexure P-6) by the Director, Health and Family Planning, Punjab. The said order reads as under : "you being a purely temporary employee on ad hoc basis, your services are hereby terminated with immediate effect. For the period prior to termination of your services, you would be entitled to the emoluments as may be admissible under the rules. " The petitioner challenged the above-said order by way of writ petition, mainly on the ground that the order was void abinitio in as much as one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof was not given before terminating his services. The learned Single Judge held that in fact the petitioner had become a temporary Government servant and according to the Punjab Civil Services Rules, he was entitled to ore month's notice or pay in lieu thereof before he could be discharged from service and since this had not been done, the termination order was bad in law. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the State of Punjab and others have come up in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) THE Letters Patent Bench, which had admitted the appeal, bad stayed the operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge vide order dated 9th November, 1982. Respondent Joginder Singh has not put in appearance himself or through a counsel. Actual date notice of hearing was also sent to him.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the main question that falls for consideration is whether writ petitioner Joginder Singh was merely an ad hoc employee or was a temporary employee. According to him, if the petitioner was just an ad hoc employee, the question of giving him any notice before terminating his services under the Punjab Civil Services Rules would not arise. Alternatively he submitted that even if the writ petitioner had become a temporary employee, the termination order could not be held to be bad for non-payment of one month's pay in lieu of the notice, as the petitioner would only be entitled to claim one month's pay, but on that ground the order of termination could not be set aside.