SHANKAR GHOSH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that though the present petitioner was working with the respondents since last 36 years as a peon, he has been dismissed from the services on 17th December, 2007 mainly for the reason that before 36 years his appointment was illegal and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, who has vehemently submitted that the petitioner has been legally appointed as a peon and he has served sincerely, honestly, diligently and to the satisfaction of the Government. Never any memo has been received by the petitioner nor any inquiry has been initiated against the present petitioner. In service book also, his name and photograph has been reflected correctly, which has been signed by high ranking officer of the respondents year by year for more than three long decades and, thereafter, on one fine morning, respondents can not terminate the service of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was wrongly appointed before 36 years and, therefore, the services, which were terminated by the respondents vide order at Annexure -6 to the memo of petition, deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that initially also a writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 3135 of 2007 was instituted by the petitioner for release of the salary and by the order of this Court vide order dated 5th July, 2007, withhold salary was released. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that after appointment of the petitioner, he was given first time bound promotion and, thereafter, second time bound promotion was also given to the petitioner and thus the petitioner has proved his efficiency in the services as a peon. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Kabir Mahto v. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in : 2009 (1) PLJR 35 and has submitted that the services of the petitioner can not be terminated after 36 years on the ground of illegality in the appointment when he was appointed especially when the service book is maintained by the Government with name and photograph of the petitioner. Thus, the stand taken by the Government at Annexure -6 for termination of the services of the petitioner, after putting 36 years honest service record, is absolutely illegal and dehors the aforesaid decision. Likewise, counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Surajmal Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in : 2009 (4) PLJR 929 and submitted that as per this decision also, the services of the petitioner can not be terminated after 36 years long tenure on the ground that he was not legally appointed.

(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: