RENU BISHT Vs. GARHWAL MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
GARHWAL MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD
Click here to view full judgement.
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 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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.