SURINDER NATH UTTAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE reference of two questions which will presently stated, on the Full Bench, has been made in these Circumstances. Two persons Surinder Nath Uttam and ram Sarup were holding temporary posts in the Estate Office Chandigrarh of a cashier and an Accountant, respectively. On 4th April, 1959, their services were terminated. At that time Surinder Nath Uttam has put in 13 years of service whereas Ram Sarup had been in service for a period of 15 years. They filed writ petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution which were dismissed by a learned single Judge on 25th January 1963. They filed appeals under Clause 10 of the letters Patent which came up before a Bench for hearing.

(2.) IN view of the Allegations contained in the petitioners as also the observations made by the learned Single Judge on which an argument was raised on behalf of the appellants that the action taken by the Government was not bona fide and was actuated by mala fides the Bench has referred the following two questions for decision by the Full Bench:-

(3.) IT may be mentioned at the outset that the arguments before the Full Bench were confined mainly to matters arising out of orders made with regard to government servants holding temporary posts but on principle there does not appear to any distinction between cases of that category and other cases where orders are attached or challenged by petitioners under Article 226 on the ground of mala fides or lack of bona fides or bad faith on the part of authorities making those orders.