ROHTASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main issue which has been. raised in this writ petition filed by the petitioner against the termination of his service is whether a public employer like the Municipal Committee has absolute right to dispense with the service of a temporary employee without any notice or reason and whether such employee can complain of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. The name of the petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Sonepat in response to a requisition sent by the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Sonepat for appointment to the post of Tractor Driver in the service of the Municipal Committee, Sonepat (for short, the Committee). On the basis of his selection, the petitioner was appointed as Tractor Driver in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040.00 on ad hoc basis. The order of appointment Annexure P-1 does not contain any indication that the appointment was for a fixed period but it was subject to the following conditions :

(3.) In their reply, respondents 1 to 3 have stated that although the petitioner had been appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040.00, the Deputy Commissioner passed the order reducing his pay scale in view of the audit objection. Respondents 1 to 3 have pleaded that an ad hoc employee does not have any right to continue in service beyond a period of nine months in view of the circular dated 5.2.1990 issued by the Government of Haryana (Annexure-R2) and, therefore, the termination of the service of the petitioner is justified.