HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
H M RATURI
Click here to view full judgement.
(2.) INSTANT petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24th July, 2012 passed by respondent no.2 whereby the representation of the petitioner for absorption of his services on the post of Executive Officer has been rejected and he has been reverted back to the post of Work Agent.
On 12th March, 1997, the Government issued an order whereby it was provided that the post of centralized service in Class-III and Class-IV in the municipalities be filled by deputation. In pursuance of that order, an order was passed by the Commissioner, Kumoun Mandal, Nainital on 16.09.1997, providing appointment to the petitioner on the post of Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Didihat (Pithoragarh). In the said order, it was also provided that as soon as the selected candidates are available from the Public Service Commission/Government, the arrangement so made would come to an end automatically. Since the petitioner is going to be retired within two months, he made representation for his absorption on the post held by him. The Director, Urban Development Department, Uttarakhand, Dehradun/ respondent no. 2 vide impugned order dated 24th July, 2012 rejected the claim of the petitioner while passing order on his representation.
The said order has been passed by considering two aspects. One, that the petitioner is going to be retired on 31st October, 2012. Secondly, the work of the petitioner on the post of Executive Officer was not found satisfactory. Although, the respondent no.2 in his order, has written something against the petitioner, but the said order nowhere demonstrates that the petitioner was ever given any opportunity of hearing in the matter. The petitioner is working on the post of Executive Officer from the year 1979 and no show cause notice was ever given to the petitioner during this period. This fact has also been mentioned by the petitioner in paragraph-3 of the supplementary affidavit, which has been filed in the Court today. Learned counsel for the petitioner also supplied a copy of the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1052 of 2006 (SS), in which in identical circumstances, the impugned order was quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I direct that, till next date of listing, operation of the impugned order dated 24th July, 2012 (contained as annexure no.6 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no.2, shall remain stayed. List this petition on 12th September, 2012. By that time the respondents may file counter affidavit. Stay application (CLMA No. 8406/12) stands disposed of.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.