SURINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Surinder Kumar, petitioner, has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and it has been prayed by the petitioner that a writ in the nature of the certiorari be issued and the order dated 11.8.1985 (Annexure P-5) vide which his services were terminated be set aside as the said order is totally illegal and has been passed in an arbitrary manner. It has also been prayed that a writ on the nature of mandamus be issued against the respondents directing them to reinstate him with all consequential benefits including the arrears of pay and further to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner in view of the instructions dated 28.2.1991.

(2.) The facts can be noticed in the following manner. The petitioner was appointed as Instructor (Hosiery) in Hosiery Goods Training Centre on 21.7.1983. His services were transferred to District Rural Development Agency (hereinafter called "DRDA"), Gurgaon on 31.3.1985. The SLSC approved the transfer of Hosiery Centre from Gurgaon to Rewari on 9.5.1990. In stead of approving the previous service of the petitioner right from 1983, he was issued a fresh appointment letter on 1.4.1985. The petitioner was not satisfied with this action and, therefore, he filed a suit for declaration challenging his fresh appointment with effect from 1.4.1985. The suit of the petitioner was decreed by the Civil Court on 21.11.1987. The State filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the appeal was also dismissed on 29.9.1988. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an execution application for the implementation of the judgment passed by the trial Court. The case set up by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that his services could not be terminated vide order dated 11.8.1985 on the plea that the Hosiery Centre against which he was engaged at Rewari was no longer required in DRDA Scheme. The petitioner alleges that if Rewari Centre was not required under the scheme, the best course was to revert back him to Gurgaon Centre.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. The stand taken up by the respondents is that since the Rewari Centre has been closed down, therefore, the services of the petitioner has been rightly terminated vide order Annexure P-5.