RANDHIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Randhir Singh who was employed as gunman and whose services were terminated on November 28, 1987, through present petition filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take him in service, as the order asking him to quit on the sole ground that his services were no longer required was factually incorrect.

(2.) Brief facts of the case reveal that the petitioner earlier served in Army for a period of over 13 years and was discharged from there on medical grounds. He got himself registered with Soldiers Board, Narnaul for seeking a job of Class IV employee and was recommended by Soldiers Board. He was appointed as Gunman with effect from July 15, 1985 at Road Tax Check Barrier at Jai Singh Pura Khera under Rewari Depot. On 20th September, 1987 he was transferred from Rewari Depot to Sonepat Depot at Road Tax Check Barrier, Kundli. He was once again re-transferred from Road Tax Check Barrier, Kundli in Sonepat to Jaising Pura Khera in Rewari Depot on November 24, 1987 and it is on November 28, 1987 as mentioned above that his services were terminated. The positive case of the petitioner so pleaded and argued by his learned counsel in para 14-A is that when the petitioner was transferred from Kundli Border to Jaising Pura Khera Border, one Ranbir Singh respondent No. 4 herein was appointed on the posts of Gunman on the same very day. If that be so, it could not be stated that no post of Gunman was available, contends the learned counsel. In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, reply on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been filed. The averments made in Para 14A of the writ petition have not been disputed. Further in paragraph 14-A of the reply it is mentioned that the posts of Gunman were in existence on all the barriers under the control of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Faridabad. Even now the post of Gunman is lying vacant at Jai Singh Pura Khera barrier since the date of discontinuation of services of the petitioner. If that be the position as it is being admitted that the post of Gunmen were available, the order terminating the services of the petitioner has to be quashed being based on non-existent ground. The matter otherwise is also covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Ved Parkash and others v. State of Haryana and others,1993 4 SCT 448. This writ petition deserves to succeed and the order (Annexure P-1) dated November 28, 1987 terminating the services of the petitioner is set aside.

(3.) Normally, on the order of termination being set aside the rule is for grant of full wages. However, it is conceded position that the matter remained pending here for about a decade and it is not known whether the petitioner was gainfully employed somewhere or not. The learned counsel for the parties, in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, seek a consensus order from this Court on the question of back wages. Mr Singla states that the petitioner would be satisfied if only 50% back wages are given to him. Mr. Nehra, learned Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, appearing on behalf of the State, too concedes that this would be just and fair. The petitioner is, thus, held entitled to 50% back wages as also reinstatement.