TEJ PAL SACHDEVA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined service as Octroi Moharar in the Municipal Committee, Abohar, in the year 1953-54. On April 6, 1976 he was promoted as an Octroi Inspector. In pursuance of the provisions of Punjab Act 74 of 73, Section 38 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 was amended. It was enforced by notification dated November 24, 1975 with effect from December 1, 1975. In accordance with these provisions, various services including the Punjab Municipal Service of Inspectors/Assistants was constituted. In accordance with the provisions of sub-section (6), a Committee was constituted which considered the claims of various persons including the petitioner. He was not found fit for becoming a member of the service as constituted by the State Government. Accordingly vide letter dated March 30, 1980 the petitioner was informed that the post held by him shall be deemed to have been abolished on March 6, 1981 and that he will be considered to have been relieved on the date of the communication of the order. He was, of course, held entitled to the payment of salary etc. for the period during which he had actually worked. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. It is alleged that the order is violative of principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the petitioner before ordering the abolition of his post.

(2.) No written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Vinay Mittal, learned counsel for the respondents-Committee has stated that in spite of the order dated March 30, 1981, the petitioner had been permitted to continue to serve the Municipal Committee till August 31, 1992 when he retired on attaining the age of superannuation. He has further stated that the Municipal Committee had passed a resolution in this behalf.

(3.) Abolition of a post is the prerogative of the employer. Employee has no right to be heard in this behalf. However, it is not necessary to go into this matter as the petitioner had been permitted to continue in service till he attained the age of superannuation. It is true that the petitioner was not a member of the provincial service. However, his rights against the original employer, viz, the Municipal Committee, were fully protected. Resultantly, the petitioner has no cause of action which may entitle him to seek his remedy through the present proceedings.