JORA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was engaged as a part-time water-carrier by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Gulha, district Kaithal, in May, 1991, on consolidated salary of Rs. 440/- per month. This appointment was given to him without any written order of respondent No. 2. The service of the petitioner was terminated with effect from 31.3.1994 by respondent No. 2 by an oral order. Petitioner has pleaded that there is one sanctioned post of water- carrier under respondent No. 2 and notwithstanding the availability of the post, respondent No. 2 has terminated his service. At the same time, one Raju Singh has been appointed in place of the petitioner.

(2.) Writ petition has been contested by the respondents who have stated that the petitioner was engaged on part-time basis in May, 1991 and he had worked upto 31.3.1994. Thereafter, he worked in the Tehsa Office, Gulha, during the year 1993-94. It has been stated by the respondents that sanction for the post of water-carrier was upto 31.3.1994 and, therefore, the service of the petitioner had to be terminated. While admitting that there were two sanctioned posts of water-carriers, one in the office of the Sub Divisional Officer and the other in the office of the Tehsildar, Gulha, respondents have stated that service of the petitioner was terminated after the expiry of the sanction. It has also been stated that one Shri Pandhar was appointed in the office of respondent No. 2 and the petitioner was posted in the Tehsil Office, Gulha. Shri Pandhar left service on 30.9.1993. In his place Shri Raj Kumar was appointed as part-time water-carrier with effect from 1.10.1993. His service was also terminated with effect 31.3.1994.

(3.) The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though there is requirement of water-carrier in the office of respondent No. 2 as well as in the Tehsil office at Gulha, the respondents have arbitrarily terminated the petitioner's service. Learned counsel argued that for a period of almost 3 years the petitioner has continuously served under respondent No. 2 but with effect from 31.3.1994 his service has been terminated in the garb of non-sanction of the post even though the work of a water-carrier continues to exist in the office of respondent No. 2 as well as in the office of Tehsildar, Gulha. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has justified the termination of service of the petitioner on the sole ground that the sanction had not been given by the competent authority for continuing the engagement of the water-carrier. She, however, conceded that there continuous to be the requirement of a water-carrier on part-time basis. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the entire case, we are of the opinion that when respondents had continued the petitioner in service for a period of three years without any interruption and there continuous to be a requirement of a part-time water-carrier, there is no justification to discontinue the service of the petitioner merely because the competent authority has not taken the trouble to issue appropriate sanction. Sanction for a part-time or full-time post is required to be given by the competent authority and it is not within the jurisdiction of the petitioner to secure sanction. However, when the requirement of the job continuous, it is difficult to comprehend as to why the competent authority has failed to issue appropriate sanction for the post of a part-time water-carrier beyond 31.3.1994. This omission on the part of the competent authority has resulted in depriving the petitioner of his livelihood. In our opinion, it is a fit case in which a direction should be given to respondent No. 2 to employ the petitioner as a part-time water- carrier in the same manner in which he was engaged between May, 1991 to 31.3.1994 and for this purpose the competent authority should issue appropriate sanction for a part-time post of a water-carrier.