RAM BABU KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo dated 10.10.2003 (Annexure-4) whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect.

(2.) Facts lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner's father was an Operation Assistant and at the relevant time, posted in the Subdivisional Hospital, Sheohar who died while in service on 22.1.2000. After his death, petitioner filed application in the prescribed proforma (Annexure-1) claiming appointment on compassionate ground and in Column No. 3 of serial No. 5, he stated that the wife of the public servant dying in harness, that is, the petitioner's mother, is working in the Subdivisional Hospital. Claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was considered by the District Compassionate Committee and ultimately, by order dated 24.7.2001 (Annexure-2), petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground. It is common ground that the petitioner's mother at the time of the death of her husband was an employee of the State Government and she still continues as such. It seems that the attention of respondent No. 5 drawn to the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground notwithstanding that the petitioner's mother was still working as an employee of the State Government, by order as contained in memo dated 10.10.2003 (Annexure-3), it ordered for termination of the service of the petitioner in accordance with law. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, by the impugned order of the same date, passed order terminating the service of the petitioner. It is the assertion of the petitioner that before terminating his service, no opportunity was given to the petitioner which in fact, has not been controverted by respondents in the counter affidavit.

(3.) Mr. Amit Prakash, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that respondents having not controverted the assertion made by the petitioner that his service has been terminated without giving any notice to him, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner's service was terminated without giving any notice.