Trilochan Prasad Nautiyal vs Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam, Dehradun

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

The petitioner was an employee of Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam (from hereinafter referred to as "GMVN") and his services were terminated vide order dated 28.04.2011. Aggrieved the petitioner had filed the writ petition being WPSS No.444 of 2011 before this Court, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2014 in terms of judgment and order dated 02.04.2013 passed in Special Appeal No.356 of 2012 "Babita Badola Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others".

Thereafter the petitioner was given joining. Subsequently, however, the services of the petitioner have again been terminated vide order dated 12.08.2016 which he has challenged in the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly situated person had approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WPSS No.443 of 2011 where certain relief as to the salary was given by this Court vide order dated 24.2.2012. Still aggrieved, the petitioner in that writ petition filed a special appeal being SPA No.356 of 2012 before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein the Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal of the appellant and directed the respondent authorities to take back the appellant in employment. However, it was further made open that for the purposes of continuance of the appellant into service, the respondents will take into consideration the performance of the appellant and take an appropriate decision in that regard. In pursuance to the said order, the respondents constituted a two-member Appraisal Committee. The Committee so formed rejected the claim of some of the petitioners, who filed writ petitions before this Court which were allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 03.12.2018. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under:

"7. Admittedly, if we scrutinize the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court along with the conditions of the advertisement, when it contemplates an scrutiny of a satisfactory services of an employee for the purposes of continuance in a job, may be that nature of appointment was contractual appointment but, in all fairness, it was expected that when an employee submits her / his self appraisal and that is put to scrutiny before a Committee considering the aspect of continuance into the services, then at least, the employee who is likely to be affected by any decision to be taken on the same, ought to be provided with an opportunity of hearing and should have been given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the two -Members Committed which was appointed by the respondents to justify the contents of the self appraisal report and even to deal with issues considered by the Committee for the purposes of extension into the services.

Apparently, on scrutiny of the order impugned in the writ petition, i.e. 25th September, 2014, a very vague observation has been made by the respondent No. 1 that the services of the petitioners were not found compatible to the post, consequently, the services of the petitioners were dispensed with.

This Court is of the view that the nature of the order, which is impugned in the writ petition, has a civil consequence because once the advertisement envisages a consideration for extension of service subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions given in the advertisement, then, in that eventuality, and coupled with the directions issued by the Division Bench, it has to be a rational consideration showing an independent application of mind and that rationality of a decision making process ought to be after providing an opportunity to the employees who is likely to be affected and furthermore to attach fairness to the decision taken by the respondent, it should be reflected and projected in the order that the respondents have rationally considered the reasons for non continuance of service of the petitioners.

As far as these aspects are concerned, the impugned order is absolutely silent, merely a vague assertion has been made that the services rendered by the petitioners were not compatible to the post, this Court is of the considered view that the manner in which the decision has been taken, it does not satisfy the consideration directed to be made by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 02.04.2013.

Consequently, for the reasons given above, the Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 25th September, 2014 is quashed. The respondent is directed to conduct a fresh inquiry, call for an explanation from the petitioners and provide them an opportunity and after hearing them, then only take any decision as to whether the services of the petitioners deserve to be extended in terms of the contractual appointment made in their favour.

The proceedings as directed would be continued afresh from the stage of the submission of the self appraisal report of the petitioners. The directions given above will not preclude the 6 respondents to constitute a new Committee of two-Members, subject to the condition that the terms of earlier member of the Committee is not over.

The entire exercise of holding fresh enquiry by the twoMembers Committee directed to be recommended from the stage of submission of self appraisal report by the petitioner would be concluded within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Any decision to be taken would be independent and be not influenced by any finding recorded hereinabove.

The Writ Petitions are allowed subject to the above observations. The impugned orders dated 25.12.2014 as passed by respondent No. 2 is quashed. However, there would be no order as to costs."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is also on the same footing as that of petitioners in WPSS No.64 of 2015 and WPSS No.473 of 2017 and submits that the present writ petition may also be disposed of on the same terms and conditions as passed in the aforesaid writ petitions. Learned counsel for GMVN Sri Lalit Samant admits this factual position.

In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of judgment and order dated 3.12.2018 passed in WPSS No.64 of 2015 and another connected matter.