SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs. HARYANA LABOUR WELFARE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was employed as a Labour Inspector on February 27, 1989, complains that his services were illegally terminated vide order dated August 7, 1991. It is alleged that various other persons had been appointed on purely adhoc basis after terminating the petitioner's services. This, according to the petitioner, is arbitrary and violative of the rule enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, 1992 2 P.L.R. 647 (S.C.). It is further submitted that the action is also violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in as much as one Mr. Shiv Kumar Saini who had been appointed on purely adhoc basis on April 10, 1989, is still continuing in service. According to the petitioner, the termination of the services of a senior while his junior is allowed to continue is discriminatory and cannot be sustained. The petitioner prays for the quashing of the order of termination and for a direction to the respondents to retain him in service.

(2.) THE respondents have controverted the petitioner's claim. It has been pointed out that the petitioner has deliberately concealed material facts inasmuch as he has not disclosed that he had filed a civil suit No. 279 of 1991 on August 14, 1991, which was dismissed as withdrawn on September 7, 1991. It has been further pointed out that vide letter dated November 21, 1990, the petitioner has been informed that he should "complete the target of recovery of unpaid accumulations, failing which no further extension in service will be allowed." Thereafter, vide letters dated April 12, 1991, April 16, 1991, May 31, 1991 and June 7, 1991, the petitioner was advised to be careful and to improve his performance. He did not show any improvement. Consequently, vide order dated August 7, 1991, the respondents declined further extension in service.

(3.) MR . Ashosh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is not permissible for an employer to replace one adhoc employee by another adhoc employee. He submits that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in terminating the petitioner's services and appointing others on purely adhoc and temporary basis. He further submits that the action is also violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as one Mr. Shiv Kumar Saini who had been appointed as a Labour Inspector after the petitioner on April 10, 1989, was allowed to continue while the petitioner's services had been terminated. He thus, claims that the petitioner had a right to the regularisation of his services. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents.