Decided on June 26,2012

Renu Bisht Appellant


B.S.VERMA, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief: - I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 28 -4 -2011 passed by the respondent no.2 contained as Annexure No. 1 and 2, after summoning the original of the same from the respondents. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue as Chief Manager/Regional Manager in the establishment of respondent no.1 and to pay them their salary regularly every month. III. Issue an ad -interim mandamus to the aforesaid effect. IV. Issue a writ, order or direction, which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. V. Award the cost of the petition. 2
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition, are that an advertisement was issued by the respondent no.2 inviting applications for various posts and in response thereto, the petitioners applied for the post of Chief Manager/Regional Manager. After undergoing the selection process, both the petitioners were selected for being appointed on contractual basis for a period of one year and appointment letter to that effect was issued to each of the petitioners, which have been annexed as Annexure -5 to the writ petition.
(3.) THE petitioners resumed their duty as Chief Manager/Regional Manager w.e.f. 29 -7 -2010 and their work remained always satisfactory. After a short time, the respondent no.3 started making false and baseless complaints against the selection and appointments of the petitioners, as the respondent no.3 was interested in getting its own men appointed on the said post and ultimately the State Government directed the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal Pauri to conduct an enquiry in the matter of appointment and in the enquiry report it was held that the appointments were made in a legal manner and the only objection was to the effect that before posting the petitioners, approval of the Board of Directors was not obtained by the Managing Director. According to the petitioners, that is not a condition under the relevant service rules of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.3 called on strike so as to create pressure for terminating the services of the petitioners, which resulted into great loss to the respondent no.1 and, ultimately, the services of the petitioners were terminated by giving them one months salary in lieu of the notice. The grievance of the petitioners is that by the impugned order the services of the petitioners were terminated illegally without paying one months salary to them while it was incumbent upon the respondent no.2 to provide the bank draft along with the impugned orders, hence the present writ petition has been filed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.