OM PAL RANA Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was an Ayurvedic Medical doctor, who had been appointed on ad hoc basis on 24.02.1987. On 04.06.1990, he was reported to have fallen sick and remained absent and supposed to have taken treatment till he reported for duty on 22.07.1991. He was allowed to join, subject to condition that action would be taken for absence from duty. No action for the alleged unauthorized absence was taken, even while the petitioner submitted several medical certificates to show his illness issued during the relevant period. He was terminated on 15.07.1992 that his services were no longer required.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that in the gradation list which was issued on 01.01.1988 that was even within one year from the date of his initial entry into ad hoc service, he was placed at serial No. 363 and that while persons placed beneath him had been regularized subsequently, he had not been regularized. On the other hand, he had been terminated from service without any enquiry. His contention is that he should have been deemed to have been regularized in terms of the policy statement issued by the Government of Haryana on 29.03.1991 that allowed for regularization of ad hoc employees who had completed 2 years of service as on 31.12.1990 and who were in service on 31.12.1990.

(3.) THE learned senior counsel argues that an order of termination simpliciter could still to be examined to note any latent motivation for giving such an order of termination. There was not at any point of time an attempt to cause a stigma or carry out an investigation that was dropped midway and to visit a person with termination. There is no scope for lifting a veil that did not exist. I do not therefore entertain an argument in that regard made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.