UGAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.4.1988 contained in Annexure 8 to the petition by which the services of the petitioner had been terminated. The factual gamut of the case as revealed by the record is that petitioner was appointed as Gram Sewak (V.L.W.) on 18.1.1985 on purely temporary basis for a period of 29 days or till the regularly selected candidates are made available by the District Establishment Committee (hereinafter called D.E.C.). The services of the petitioner were extended several times for a period of 29 days and it came to an end in July 1986. As the regular selected candidates were not made available by D.E.C., petitioner was given appointment vide order dated 6.10.1986 contained in Annexure 2 to the petition for a period of six months purely on temporary basis and there has been no further extension of his services. However, petitioner claims that he continued to work without any extension of his services, and he has been removed from service vide impugned order dated 22.4.1988.

(2.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 22.4.1988 mainly on the ground that there was a government order dated 20.1.1988 contained in Annex. 4 to the petition to the effect that all temporary V.L.Ws appointed subsequent to December 31, 1985 be removed and as the petitioner had been appointed prior to the said date, his termination is illegal and contrary to the Government order.

(3.) IT has been contended by the petitioner's counsel that the termination order is contrary to Government order dated 20.1.1988 and thus the termination is illegal. There is no force in this contention as the petitioner had not worked continuously from the date prior to 31.12.1985 and there has been a gap in his service. Infact he has worked regularly from 13th December, 1986 as is revealed by order dated 15.4.1988 contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition. The impugned termination order itself makes it. clear that before passing it respondent No. 3 had sought a report from respondent No. 2 and it was reported therein, that the petitioner had not been in continuous service from the date prior to 31st December, 1985. On the contrary, petitioner himself has stated in paragraph 3 of the petition that he worked up to July, 1986 and then was subsequently appointed vide order dated 6.10.1986. There is no evidence or material on record which may justify the claim of the petitioner and thus the submission made is not tenable. It is next urged that once petitioner has been allowed to work for a long period, he could not have been removed from service. Petitioner was holding a post temporarily, thus he cannot claim that he was having any right to the post, and his termination is contrary to law. In State of U.P. and Anr. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla : [1991]1SCR29 the Apex Court has categorically held as under: