NATHU RAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Nathu Ram Sharma, since deceased was appointed Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad vide Annexure P-1 dated 20th Sept., 1976 for a period of three years with effect from the date that he took charge. In Annexure P-1 it was stated that he would be governed by the Civil Services Rules as applicable to temporary Government servants. Vide Annexure P-2 dated 20.9.1979 the term of appointment of the petitioner was extended for a period of one year with effect from 24.9.1979 on the same terms and conditions as set out in Annexure P-1. On 18.4.1980, however, vide Annexure P-3 the services of the petitioner were terminated and one month salary in lieu of notice was given to him. Aggrieved by the order Annexure P-3 the petitioner has filed the present petition praying that he was entitled to continue in service up to 23.9.1980 in view of the order Annexure P-2 and his services having been terminated on 18.4.1980, he was entitled to the wages for the intervening period. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner expired and his legal representatives have already been brought on record under the orders of this Court.

(2.) The stand of the respondent in the written statement was that the petitioner was a temporary Government servant and his services had been terminated in accordance with Rule 5.9(b) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II (hereinafter called 'the Rules') which are said to have been applicable to the service in question. It has further been stated that one month wages which were given in lieu of notice satisfied the requirement of the Rules.

(3.) Mr. Dinesh Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the very reading of Rule 5.9(b) to which reference has been made above, would clearly show that it does not apply to an appointment such as the one held by the petitioner. Rule 5.9(b) is quoted below:-