HARISH CHANDRA Vs. LIEUT GOVERNOR OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
LIEUT. GOVERNOR OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
Chowdhry, J.C. -
(1.) This is an application by one Harish Chandra under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other directions as may be deemed fit to the respondent. The Chief Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh was the respondent" originally, but after 1-3-1952, on which date Himachal Pradesh became a Lieutenant Governor's State, the description of the respondent was on the application of the petitioner amended into that of the Lieutenant Governor, Himachal Pradesh.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed Superintendent in the transport department by the then Sirmur State on six months probation by an order dated 24-5-1947. On the expiry of the period of his probation there was neither an order of confirmation nor of extension of the petitioner's period of probation and his Harish Chandra vs. Lieut. Governor of Himachal Pradesh (07.03.1952 - HPHC) Page 1 of 5 services were not terminated, the scale of his salary was raised and on the expiry of one year he was allowed an increment. After the merger of Sirmur State with Himachal Pradesh on 15-4-1948, his services were retained in the transport department, and he was redesignated Works and Traffic Manager, which post he continued to hold until his services were terminated. The petitioner was on 38 days leave from 10-12-1949 to 16-1-1950, on which latter date he received a notice from the General Manager Himachal Government Transport that the Chief Commissioner had terminated his services on the expiry of his leave, which meant terminated with immediate effect. It appears that in response to a representation from the petitioner which was meanwhile pending the Chief Commissioner extended the petitioner's leave to 80 days from the aforesaid date, 10-12 1949, and terminating on 28-2-1950. This had the effect of postponing the date of termination of the petitioner's services from 16-1-1950 to 28-2-1950.
(3.) It has been alleged in the present application that the order of removal of the petitioner from the service of Himachal Pradesh Transport Department was illegal, unjust and void inasmuch as he had not been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action taken in regard to him, whether under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India or under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and. Appeal) Rules. It has been further alleged that the petitioner wrote to the General Manager and tried to wait upon the Chief Commissioner to get the illegal order of removal set aside, that he submitted a representation to the Ministry of States seeking his reinstatement, and that there was an exchange of communications between the petitioner and the Finance and Development Sec- retary, Himachal Pradesh Government with the same object in view from 22-5-1951 to 25-8-1951; but to no effect. Finally, the petitioner sent a telegram to the respondent on 10-9-1951, demanding immediate reinstatement and claiming arrears of pay, but without avail. It was, therefore, contended that there had been a demand of justice and its denial to the petitioner. The petitioner further pleaded that as he was in the permanent employment of the Himachal Pradesh Government, he was entitled for the aforesaid reasons that a writ of mandamus and such other directions as may be deemed fit and necessary be issued to the respondent directing him to withdraw the aforesaid order of termination of petitioner's services, to reinstate him as Works and Traffic Manager in the Himachal Pradesh Transport Department and to pay all arrears of emoluments found due to him on the date of reinstatement.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.