PREM BALLABH SHAKTA Vs. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Prem Ballabh Shakta
KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD
Click here to view full judgement.
PER SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. -
(1.) THIS writ petition was listed before this Court on 8.8.2012. Since on 8.8.2012 the counsel of the respondent Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. was not present, the 17 - OCTOBER, 2012 - Current Labour Reports matter was adjourned till today. Counsel for the petitioner gave an undertaking that she would be informing the counsel for the respondent that the matter has been listed
again on 9.8.2012. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that she has informed him that the matter is listed today. In any case, sufficient information was there with the counsel for the respondents that the matter has to be listed today. The counsel is, however, not present before this Court.
(2.) HEARD Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner was appointed on a Class IV post called Marker in the year 1978 in Rosin Turpentine Factory, Champawat which was under the administration and control of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. which is a Government Company. His services were regularized on 15.8.1980. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 5.5.1994. The petitioner challenged this order dated 5.5.1994 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing a writ petition being Writ Petition No.23915 of 1994 which was subsequently transferred to this Court under Section 35 of the U. P. Reorganisation Act and renumbered as Writ Petition No. 4093 (S/S) of 2001. The matter was heard by the learned Single Judge and the writ petition was allowed on 10.9.2001. While allowing the writ petition this Court had observed as under:
''The services of the petitioner have been terminated by the appointing authority by saying that the services of the petitioner is no more required and gave a notice terminating the services of the petitioner and require the petitioner to receive three months ' salary. Requiring the petitioner to receive three months ' salary itself indicate that the petitioner was a permanent employee. The rule empowering the termination of services of the permanent employee after giving three months ' notice have been held ultra vires in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brijo Nath Ganguly, AIR 1991 (S.C.) 101 ' '.
In other words, a finding has been given by learned Single Judge that the petitioner 's services were of permanent in nature. However, the relief which the learned Single Judge had given was that the petitioner shall be paid only half of the back wages. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 12.10.2001. Now, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present writ petition as his salary has not been revised nor any annual increments are being paid to him;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.