HARBANS LAL Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case where unfairness is writ large in administering of justice. After appointing petitioner as helper by invoking SRO 64 of 1994 on 1-5-1995, said appointment order has been cancelled on 9-9-1995 by the same officer. Perusal of the order reveals that petitioner came to be appointed as helper after relaxing age bar by the Administrative Department by invoking SRO 64 of 1994. The order speaks that the petitioner had continuously worked for seven years as on 30-3-1994 and as a result of which, he became eligible for regularization, which was done in" pursuant to the aforesaid order. The said order gets cancelled within three months without disclosing reasons for the same. It is this order, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The positive case set out by the petitioner is that he was appointed as Daily. Wager prior to 1994 and came to be regularized on 01-05-1995 and appointed as helper. The said order of appointment was cancelled by respondent -1. The basis cancellation of order dated. 1-5-1995, is provided by communication dated 23-8-1995 issued by Regional Director, Social Forestry Project in which he states that petitioner's name has been wrongly included in the list and instead name of one Ramesh lal should have been shown in the list of regularized employees. According to the statement showing the names of Casual Labours / Daily Rated Workers issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kathua, the petitioner is stated to be appointed in the year 1985 and continued to serve the department till 1994. Vide another communication dated 29-7-1994, addressed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kathua to the Regional Director, Social Forestry Project, Jammu, it has been stated that petitioner's order of cancellation was not based on correct facts. It is further revealed that petitioner continued to work with the department till 29-7-2004. Aforesaid Communication manifestly states that for undisclosed reasons and by concocting a false report against the petitioner, his order of termination was managed by the respondents.

(3.) On the other hand, the respondents stated that petitioner on his own showing stated that he was engaged as Daily Wager in the year 1995-96, as such was not entitled to regularization on 5-5-1995. In view of the stand taken by the respondent, petitioner has no cause to agitate before the court.