AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon
Challenging the orders passed by the respondent, terminating the services of the petitioners and the orders of the appellate authority rejecting their appeal, petitioners have filed this writ petition.
Respondent Committee is a Charitable Committee constituted under the Wakf Act. Records indicate that petitioner No.1 was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk for a temporary period of three months. He joined duties on 21.10.1991, but continued to work for about five years when by the impugned order, his services were brought to an end. Interalia contending that his services have been terminated without assigning any reason, without granting him any opportunity of hearing, he filed an appeal before the appellate committee, but when the appeal was not decided, he preferred a writ petition before this Court and finally the writ petition was withdrawn seeking permission to prosecute the appeal. When the appeal was dismissed vide order-dated 3.6.1997, this writ petition has been filed.
Similarly, petitioner No.2 was also appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (Rent Collector) in the year 1987 and after serving for about 9 years, his services have been terminated. Like petitioner No.1 he has also challenged the termination.
It is the case of both the petitioners that they have worked for more than five years and, therefore, their services could not be terminated without hearing them, without granting any opportunity to them and without issuing any show-cause notice to them.
Shri R.D. Hundikar, learned counsel for the respondents, refutes the aforesaid and points out that both the petitioners were appointed as temporary employees for a short period of time, but they continued to work even though there was no regularization of service nor were they confirmed in service. It is pointed out that since 1996, petitioner No.1 took medical leave and he went abroad and was absent from service. Therefore, a show-cause notice was given to him, but as he was not available in India the show-cause notice could not be served and as he was continuously absent since 24.4.1996, it is stated that the temporary appointment, which was not confirmed in accordance to the Rules, was brought to an end. As far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, it is stated that he was a Rent Collector and it was found that he was indulging in improper activities in the matter of rent collecting, was not reporting encroachments and was found to be misusing the Wakf property, therefore, as he was only a temporary employee not confirmed, it is stated that his services were also brought to an end in accordance to the terms and conditions of his appointment. Accordingly, Shri R.D. Hundikar submits that the petitioners have no right and as their services have been terminated in accordance to law, they should not have any grievance in the matter.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is clear that both the petitioners were appointed temporarily for a short period of time, even though the appointment continued for various period, there is no material available on record to show that they were regularly appointed after following the due process of law and have attained the status of a regular employee. There is no confirmation of their service and they continued to work as temporary employees. The respondents have terminated the services of the petitioners as per the terms and conditions of appointment and now they have attained the age of 60 years, which is the age of retirement in the respondent''s establishment.
Considering the fact that petitioners were only temporary employees and their services were terminated in accordance to the terms and conditions of appointment, now no case is made out for interfering into the matter after the petitioners have also attained the age of superannuation.
Accordingly, finding no merit in the claim made by the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed.