STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAJBALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this letters patent appeal is to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.4.2003. Om Parkash Sharma, since deceased, filed a writ petition praying that the order of termination dated 16.9.1985, be quashed. He pleaded that he was appointed as Medical Officer in HCMS-II on ad hoc basis by the Director Health Services Haryana, vide order dated 4.11.1978. He continued to work on the said post on ad hoc basis. Vide order dated 25.10.1981, his ad hoc service was got approved by the Government from Haryana Public Service Commission who recommended that his service may continue till regular appointee become available. On 16.9.1985, Dr. Om Parkash's services were terminated. Alleging that his services were terminated in violation of the terms and conditions of his appointment, as no regular appointee of the Public Service Commission, was available Dr.Sharma filed a writ petition. The respondents contested the claim by pleading that services were terminated because he absented himself from duty and it was not necessary for the respondents to hold an inquiry against the alleged misconduct. Dr.Om Parkash Sharma, on the other hand, pleaded that his salaries were withheld for two months forcing him to proceed on leave for which he submitted application for leave which were disregarded by the appellants.

(2.) Learned Single Judge upon consideration of the facts, noticed that para 4 of the reply was evasive as it was not specifically denied that he was forced to go on leave for failure of the respondents to pay his salary. It was also specifically noticed that the averments in the reply, that the period of April and May 1985 was ordered to be treated as one without pay, wa not substantiated by any order, relied upon or annexed with the reply. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and taking notice of the fact that Dr. Om Parkash Sharma had expired during the pendency of the writ petition on 13.6.1988, directed that his legal representatives shall be entitled for the salary and other benefits available to the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellants states that during the months of April and May 1985, Dr. Om Parkash Sharma, remained absent for different periods of time and as such he was not allowed to draw his salary for the months of April and May 1985. His services were, therefore, terminated as per terms and conditions of his appointment i.e. after issuing a 24 hours notice. It is contended that as Dr. Sharma was an ad hoc employee, no inquiry was necessary and, therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge be set aside.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the paper book and the impugned order.