Subhash Chandra Shukla vs U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., Lucknow and others

Rakesh Sharma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials on, record.

This writ petition was presented on 5th September, 1991 assailing the order dated 31st August, 1991 passed by the Project Manager, U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., Kanpur Unit (in short the Corporation" ).

The petitioner who is diploma holder, was, initially engaged as Technical Supervisor on 16th March, 1989. His services were terminated vide impugned order dated 31st August, 1991, which is under challenge in this writ petition. This Court, while entertaining the petition, had stayed the operation of the order of termination vide order dated 6th September, 1991, thus the petitioner is continuing in service uninterruptedly w.e.f. 16th March, 1989.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a diploma holder and fully qualified for the post held by him. According to him he has been regularised in service and due to pendency of the petition his name has not been placed in the seniority list. The order of termination was challenged on various grounds Viz; the same was arbitrary and the post was available. The petitioner was entitled for salary. Similarly placed Junior Engineers, who were discharging similar duties in various units of the Corporation are continuing and there was no shortage of work in the units.

Sri M.C. Mishra, learned Counsel holding brief of Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation (respondents) has opposed the writ petition on the basis of averments made in various paragraphs of the counter affidavit. According to him, the petitioner was a diploma holder and was appointed as Technical Supervisor (Junior Engineer) in the services of the Corporation. He was in fact a daily wager and had no right to hold the post. His services were terminable at any point of time without notice as he was a daily wager only. When the petitioner became surplus his services were not required in the Corporation, accordingly he was disengaged from the services. The petitioner may approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievance.

It is a case, where a diploma holder candidate was initially appointed as Technical Supervisor in the services of the Corporation in the year 1989. Since this Court has granted interim stay on 6th September, 1991 and now the petitioner has put in 21 years of interrupted service in the Corporation and the qualification for the post of Junior Engineer is diploma holder in a Technical subject, this Court has to see as to what were the compelling exigencies, which compelled the Corporation to retrench or terminate the services of the petitioner. In paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit a suggestion has been made that the petitioner had become surplus employee and as such he was retrenched from the services. It has not been pleaded by the respodents as to whether the seniority list was prepared by the Corporation of its Supervisors, the principle of First come last go or Last come first go was followed. As indicated in the counter affidavit specific plea ought to have been taken in the counter affidavit regarding the place of the petitioner in seniority list. If it was provided by the Corporation, the petitioner was working in a unit project. There is nothing on record as to which of the projects were wounded up so that, it can be presumed that all the projects of the Corporation were wounded up. There is nothing on record to prove that there were apparent reasons or compelling reasons before the Corporation to terminate the services of the petitioner. This Court cannot ignore that the petitioner has now put in about 20 years of experience in the Corporation. There is nothing on record that that he has not been working satisfactorily in the Corporation. The respondents have failed to establish the reasons, exigencies which compelled the Corporation to retrench the services of the petitioner. Moreover, there was no suggestion as to when the retrenchment scheme was applied and where it was approved by the Labour Department. His services even the services of a workman, cannot be terminated or retrenched in an arbitrary fashion.

The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31st August, 1991 passed by the respondents is quashed. Consequences shall follow. The petitioner shall be entitled for all the benefits, as if the order of retrenchment dated 31st August, 1991, was never passed against him.