SAT PAL Vs. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is aggrieved of order dated 19th December, 1980 terminating his services as Steno -typist by the District and Session Judge, Ferozepur. Briefly stated the factual background, leading to the filing of the present petition, is that the Petitioner was appointed as Clerk vide order dated 7th July, 1971 in the pay scale of Rs. 110 -250 on ad hoc basis for a period of six months. His appointment order is noticed as under:

(2.) IS is alleged that services of the Petitioner were regularised in the aforesaid scale on 15th September, 1972. The Petitioner thereafter earned as many as seven increments and claims to have crossed the efficiency bar. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was thereafter, posted as Steno -typist on 11th August, 1973 and worked with full dedication and with unblemished record. Petitioner was again promoted as Senior Clerk with effect from 1st April, 1979 in the pay scale of Rs. 510 -800. Services of the Petitioner however came to be terminated vide order dated 19th December, 1980. The termination order reads as under:

(3.) WRITTEN statement has been filed on behalf of the Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court as also the District and Session Judge, Ferozepur. The impugned order is sought to be justified on the sole ground that the termination of the Petitioner is a accordance with terms of his appointment, being a temporary employee, terminable without assigning any reason. It is relevant to note that in the reply filed before this Court as also before the Hon'ble Appellate Judge in the appeal preferred by the Petitioner, it has been specifically admitted that the Petitioner was a dedicated employee and had unblemished service record of 9 years of service. A specific averment made in the writ petition that services of the Petitioner were regularised vide order dated 15lh September, 1972, have also been unequivocally admitted. Regarding promotion of the Petitioner to the post of Senior Clerk, it is stated that 50% of the strength of the staff, both permanent and temporary, was designated as Senior Clerk on the basis of the Government instructions. Petitioner's promotion/designation as Senior Clerk is also not disputed. No deficiency in the service of the Petitioner has been pointed out. Retention of juniors is also admitted in the reply.