Azad Kumar Singh vs District Development Officer, Pilibhit and others

S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The facts of the first writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on as paid apprentice on temporary basis as provisional arrangement. Thereafter, through order dated 8.1.1990 (Annexure 2) petitioner and another person Umesh Kumar were appointed as Junior Clerk/Junior Accounts Clerk w.e.f. 1.1.1990. However, in the Said order also it was mentioned that the said promotion was a provisional arrangement on temporary basis.

In 1986 services of 11 Junior clerks had been terminated, six of them filed writ petition which was allowed by Lucknow Bench of this Court on and termination order was set aside. In the said judgment (Annexure 7) it was categorically mentioned that those persons who had been appointed at the place of the petitioners of the said writ petition should not be removed from service. However, through order dated 14.10.1991 petitioner''s services were terminated. True copy of the said order is Annexure 14 to the writ petition. Strangely enough by another order of the same date i.e. 14.10.1991 petitioner was again appointed as junior accounts clerk (NRIP) on temporary basis.

The facts of the second writ petition are that the petitioner of the said writ petition was appointed on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk in the office of respondent No. 1 on 10.4.1989. He was appointed on the post vacated due to promotion of Lalit Mohan, Junior Accounts Clerk. Services of petitioner of second writ petition were also terminated on the same ground on which services of petitioner of first writ petition were terminated through order dated 14.10.1991 which is Annexure-13 and similarly he was again appointed through order of the same date i.e. 14.10.1991 on the post of junior clerk.

There was absolutely no reason to first pass order of termination and then again pass order of appointment of the same date. In the counter affidavit filed in the second writ petition it has been stated that as services of six, out of 11 terminated employees had been restored through aforesaid judgment of Lucknow Bench of this Court hence it was necessary to pass termination order and fresh appointment order. Relevant portion of para 14 of the counter affidavit is quoted below:--

In this view of the matter as there is no post vacant due to reinstatement 6 persons due to the order passed by the Hon''ble High Court on 19.4.1990 therefore the services of the petitioner was terminated on 14.10.1991 as Junior clerks account for want of any post. The petitioner was again appointed on same date as junior clerk (general cadre).

Instead of terminating the services of the petitioners only their cadre could be changed. In the earlier judgment setting aside termination order of six clerks, the Court had clearly directed that persons appointed at their places should not be removed.

Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed. Termination orders dated 14.10.1991 are set aside. The petitioners should be treated to be junior clerks (general category) with full seniority from the date of their initial appointment.

Both the writ petitions are accordingly allowed.