GODHAM RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was engaged as a daily -wager by the respondents. The services were orally terminated on February 3, 1999 which order has been assailed in the present Original Application alleging therein that the order of oral termination of the applicant is bad in law as respondents have engaged some other junior persons without re -engaging the applicant.

(2.) The record had been summoned today which has been produced. The learned Additional Advocate General represents that on the basis of the record, one Sh. Rai Singh S/o Sh. Frangi Ram has been engaged from January 1999 onwards. So far as the applicant is concerned, he was continuing from February, 1991.

(3.) Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, it revealed from the record of the respondents that the services of the junior were retained and applicants services were terminated who happened to be senior to this Rai Singh. Admittedly, the proper procedure in this behalf has not been followed.