Dayaram Lodhi vs State of M.P.

R.S. Jha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has filed this petition praying for quashing the oral order of termination of the petitioner and for a direction permitting him to join services on the post of attendant with back wages.

The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wage employee on 1-8-1984 and was asked to do the work of an attendant. He was doing work on such post for a considerable period of time. It is submitted that from 21-5-2004 he absented from his work on account of the fact that he was suffering from jaundice and chronic lever disorder and thereafter again appeared before the respondents after a lapse of nearly 21/2 years on 17-9-2006 asking the respondents to permit him to work.. It is alleged that as the respondents did not take any action in spite of the fact that the petitioner had filed several representations therefore he is constrained to file the present petition.

The respondents have filed a return and have stated therein that the petitioner was a daily wage employee. It is submitted that he stopped attending his duties on his own with effect from 21-5-2004 and thereafter he appeared before the respondents on 28-10-2005 and submitted an application stating that he could not perform his duties on account of the fact that his wife was seriously ill, a copy of which has been filed by the respondents as Annexure R-1 alongwith the return. It is stated that the petitioner again submitted an application on 21-12-2005 on the ground that his wife was ill and therefore he was unable to perform his duties. It is stated that none of these applications of the petitioner state that he was suffering from hepatitis or that he was himself sick and unable to perform his duties.

It has been further stated that the petitioner made a false complaint against the officer concerned before the Collector on account of which a show cause notice was again issued to the petitioner on 29-6-2006 asking him to report to the authority concerned and submit relevant documents for conducting an enquiry in the matter but the petitioner did not do so. The respondents submit that the petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived. It is submitted that the petitioner was a daily wager and not a regular employee and has himself on his own stopped working and attending his duties and in such circumstances the contentions of the petitioner regarding holding of a regular enquiry, taking him back in service as well as for grant of back wages deserve to be rejected.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

From a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner was a daily wage employee. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner himself stopped attending his duties with effect from 21-5-2004. As per his own case the petitioner has stated in the petition that he appeared before the authority on 17-9-2006 for rejoining his duties. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts the respondent/authorities are not required to either giving a show cause notice to the petitioner or conduct an enquiry against him as he was not a regular employee in the establishment of the respondent and he stopped working on his own. A perusal of Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2 filed by the respondents alongwith the return also indicates that the defence set up by the petitioner regarding his illness is false as he had throughout stated before the authorities that his wife and not he was sick. From a perusal of the record it is also clear that there is no order of termination in respect of the petitioner and he himself stopped attending his duties From analysis of the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered opinion that the petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and accordingly stands dismissed. It is, however, observed that the petitioner is a daily wager and has rendered services in the establishment of the respondent/authorities and in such circumstances the respondent/authorities may re-engage the petitioner afresh on daily wages in case the petitioner files an application before them for the same. It is made clear that as no mandatory direction has been given by this Court, the concerned authority would be free to consider such an application filed by the petitioner on its own merits.

With the aforesaid observations the petition filed by the petitioner being meritless, stands dismissed.