AB MAJID DAR Vs. DIRECTOR FIRE SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts which have given rise to the instant petition are that the petitioners were appointed as Firemen vide orders dated 31 -11 -1966, 5 -4 -1966 and 6 -6 -1966 respectively. They were imparted required training, they served the department till they were discharged from services on 1 -6 -1979, 8 -1 -1977and2 -11 -1977 respectively and all of them had a service of more than a decade to their credit at the time of their ouster. The petitioner 1 and 2 were discharged on the allegations of unauthorised absence, whereas the petitioner No. 3 was discharged on the ground of resignation. The orders of discharge were represented against and the representation evoked positive response of the respondents, in consequence thereto the orders of discharge came to be revoked vide Government Order No. Home -121/ Fire of 1984 dated 3 -3 -1984, hereinafter called as "order 121 for brevity, wherein the petitioners figure at serial numbers 3,4 and 6 respectively. The relevant position of order 121 is reproduced for ready reference:

(2.) A plain reading of Order 121 reveals that the intervening period has been treated as dies -non however, conditions came to be imposed on beneficiaries of the order which required them to observe discipline and not to give rise to complaint in future. The petitioners contend that they had preferred a claim for promotion to the Selection Grade on the basis of length of service, but the respondent No.1 did not concede to, conversely aimed at denial of promotion to the petitioners and in this direction an order of modification was issued bearing No. Home -(Fire) 228 GR of 1986 dated 22 -7 -1986, hereinafter referred to as the impugned orderâ„¢, by virtue of which Order 121 was modified making order 121 ineffective excepting to the extent of pensionary benefits. The relevant contents of the order are reproduced hereunder:

(3.) THE petitioners being aggrieved of the impugned order have assailed the same because: