VED PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed to quash the order (Annexure P-3) dated 22. 5. 1995 passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Panipat terminating the service of the petitioner, who was working as a daily-wager in the Haryana Roadways at Panipat.

(2.) THE petitioner, who is a Matriculate, was appointed as Helper on daily wages by the General Manager Haryana Roadways, Panipat w. e. f. 17. 1. 1995 by order (Annexure P-1) dated 18. 1. 1995. His appointment was to last till 31. 3. 1995. However the term of his appointment as daily waged employee was extended from time to time. Respondent No. 4 was similarly appointed as Helper by order dated 17. 4. 1995 (Annexure P-2) with effect from 1. 3. 1995. His appointment was to last till 31. 4. 1995 and he was to be paid Rs. 1150/- per month. Services of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 came to be terminated vide impugned order (Annexure P-3) dated 22. 5. 1995 on the ground that the same are no longer required. However, just after two days, the respondent No. 4 came to be appointed as Peon on daily wages with effect from 24. 5. 1995 vide order Annexure P-4. It is an admitted position that the orders Annexures P-3 and P-4 were issued by Shri N. K. Singla who was holding the post of General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Panipat, at the relevant time. The petitioner has challenged the termination of his service on the ground of arbitrariness and discrimination by alleging that respondent No. 4 was junior to him as a helper and, therefore, while retaining respondent No. 4 in service, respondent No. 3 could not terminate his service. Petitioner's grievance is that with a mala fide intention, the then General Manager terminated the service of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 but reappointed the respondent No. 4 as Peon with effect from the same very date, i. e. 22. 5. 1995, without even considering his case.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments, it was found that before appointing the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 no requisition was sent by the respondent No. 3 to the Employment Exchange although such appointment had been made against the existing posts. Therefore, it was ordered by the Court on 12. 2. 1996 that a notice be issued to the respondent No. 3 to show cause as to why a direction be not issued to the Government to prosecute him for violation of the provisions of Section 4 of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. Shri N. K. Singla, who was holding the post of General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Panipat, at the relevant time filed his affidavit along with Civil Misc. No. 4691 of 1996. In this affidavit, Shri Singla has stated that petitioner Ved Parkash was appointed on daily wages with effect from 17. 1. 1995 and respondent Brij Bhushan was appointed as daily waged Helper with effect from 18. 1. 1995. He has also stated that service of both i. e. the petitioner and the respondent No. 4, were dispensed with/discontinued with effect from 22. 5. 1995. It has also been stated that immediately after the termination of service of respondent No. 4 his mother came along with him and pleaded that they are poor people and that she was mentally retarded and the respondent No. 4 was looking after her and as the post of Peon was vacant the deponent took a compassionate view in the matter and ordered his appointment on daily wages w. e. f. 22. 5. 1995 till 30. 11. 1995. Shri Singla has further stated that he has since been transferred from the post of General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Panipat. He has tendered unqualified apology for not sending requisition to the Employment Exchange for appointment of Peon.