The State of Punjab and Others vs Joginder Singh, Clerk

R.S. Mongia, J.—Joginder Singh, writ-petitioner (now respondent in the present L.P A.) was appointed as a Clerk for a period of six months on 17th May, 1966 by the Chief Medical Officer, Hoshiarpur, en a purely ad hoc basis. On 17th October, 1966, the Chief Medical Officer, vide Annexure P-7, recommended to the Director, Health Services, Punjab, to request the Secretary, Subordinate Service Selection Board, Chandigarh, to approva the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis. It was further requested that in the meantime, the petitioner be allowed to continue in service so that the work of the Accounts Branch may not suffer. However, the service of the writ petitioner wore terminated by order dated 8th November, 1973 (Annexure P-6) by the Director, Health and Family Planning, Punjab. The said order reads as under :-

"You being a purely temporary employee on ad hoc basis, your services are hereby terminated with immediate effect. For the period prior to termination of your services, you would be entitled to the emoluments as may be admissible under the rules."

The petitioner challenged the above-said order by way of writ petition, mainly on the ground that the order was void abinitio in as much as one month''s notice or pay in lieu thereof was not given before terminating his services. The learned Single Judge held that in fact the petitioner had become a temporary Government servant and according to the Punjab Civil Services Rules, he was entitled to ore month''s notice or pay in lieu thereof before he could be discharged from service and since this had not been done, the termination order was bad in law. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the State of Punjab and others have come up in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

The Letters Patent Bench, which had admitted the appeal, bad stayed the operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge vide order dated 9th November, 1982. Respondent Joginder Singh has not put in appearance himself or through a counsel. Actual date notice of hearing was also sent to him.

The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the main question that falls for consideration is whether writ petitioner Joginder Singh was merely an ad hoc employee or was a temporary employee. According to him, if the petitioner was just an ad hoc employee, the question of giving him any notice before terminating his services under the Punjab Civil Services Rules would not arise. Alternatively he submitted that even if the writ petitioner had become a temporary employee, the termination order could not be held to be bad for non-payment of one month''s pay in lieu of the notice, as the petitioner would only be entitled to claim one month''s pay, but on that ground the order of termination could not be set aside.

There is no dispute on the fact that no order for regularisation of the services of the writ petitioner was passed and it was only recommended by the Chief Medical Officer, vide Annexure P-7 that the Secretary of the Subordinate Services Selection Board may be asked to regularise the services of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed purely on ad hoc temporary basis. In our view, merely because the petitioner was permitted to contribute towards the General Provident Fund would not be ipso facto lead to the conclusion that he become a temporary employee Rule 13.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, on which the reliance was placed by the learned Single Judge to hold that the petitioner tied become a temporary employee only envisages that a temporary Government employee after he continues in service for one year shall subscribe to the General Provident Fund. This rule, however, does not debar the State Government to permit an ad hoc employee to contribute towards that fund Accordingly, the learned Single Judge was not correct in holding that the petitioner had become a temporary Government employee. No just remained an ad hoc employee and his services could be terminated any time without notice and without assigning any reason. In view of the above finding of ours, the question of giving one month''s notice or pay in lieu thereof which is the requirement under Rule 5.9 (5) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, in case of a temporary Government servant would not arise.

Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition. There will be no order as to costs.