A.P. Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Upadhyay for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner is a class -III employee in the Family Court at Jhansi and is working since 2003. The petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis and is continuing as such. The High Court took a decision on the administrative side which was implemented through a letter of the Registrar General dated 5.11.2009 and the Corrigendum dated 11.11.2009. In pursuance of the letter of the Registrar General dated 5.11.2009, the learned Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, terminated the services of the petitioner on 2.12.2009 which is under challenge before this Court on various grounds.
(3.) SRI Rajeev Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that this issue relating to ad hoc engagement of employees in the District Judgeship became subject matter of consideration in the case of Anjani Kumar Dubey and Ors. v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Ors. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 62910 of 2009, which was dismissed on 4.1.2010. A Special Appeal No. 65 of 2010 was filed against the aforesaid judgment and the Division Bench was pleased to pass an order on 21.1.2010 which is quoted below: The certified copy of judgement passed by learned single judge filed by learned Counsel for the appellants is taken on record. We have heard Shri Abhishek Mishra learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri K.R. Sirohi, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri S.P. Singh appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2. The respondents have not filed counter affidavit. However, the registry has produced the records before us. We have gone through the records. From the records it transpires that in view of the interim report submitted by the Committee on 14.9.2009 the employees of Agra judgeship/ Appellants as well as employees of other judgeships in the State of U.P. have been ceased to work on class III and IV posts, who were appointed on ad hoc and daily wage basis and who have been regularised on vacant posts in view of U.P. Regularisation on Ad hoc Appointments (on the post outside the purview of Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules 2001. The appellants had been working on ad hoc basis by granting tenure appointments to them and three have been working since 1998, two from 2000 and two from 2001. The officers of the registry who were present before us namely Shri Salim Ahmed Khan, Joint Registrar (Inspection) could not inform us as to whether the aforesaid Rules, 2001 has been adopted by the High Court or not. We direct the respondents to file counter affidavit explaining 1.Whether U.P. Regularisation on Ad hoc Appointments (on the post outside the purview of Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules 2001, have been adopted by the High Court or not. If Rules, 2001 have not been adopted by the High Court then how these Rules would apply to the District Judgeships, and if these Rules have been adopted by the High Court then the Rules, 2001 would apply with full force to the High Court establishment as well as to the District Courts. 2. Whether the Hon'ble Chief Justice had authorised the Committee to recommend a policy decision with regard to all the class III and IV employees of Judgeships of entire State of U.P. or the authorisation to the Committee was with regard to the employees who are working on ad hoc basis or tenure appointment. If the authorisation by the Chief Justice was with regard to ad hoc/tenure appointments then the Committee could not have considered the appointments of employees working in district courts who had been taken into service on regular basis though their initial appointment may have been ad hoc or tenure appointment. 3. The registry shall also explain as to what is the difference between general letter or High Court circular issued under the Allahabad High Court Rules and whether letters dated 5.11.2009 and 26.11.2009 issued by the Registrar General are general letter or circular of the High Court. 4. Whether a policy decision with regard to class III and IV employees of subordinate courts establishment can be taken by the Chief Justice or by the Administrative Committee or by the Full Court. Counter affidavit shall be filed by the registry by 28.1.2010 and records shall be produced before us. Put up for further hearing on 28.1.2010 at 2.00 P.M. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we prima facie find force the submissions made by the appellants. Prima facie the U.P. Regularisation on Ad hoc Appointments (on the post outside the purview of Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules 2001 do not apply to the instant case. If the Rules do not apply then the report of Committee would fall. Further the services of ad hoc/tenure appointees could not be terminated after about more than eight years without any opportunity of hearing. From the letter of Registrar General dated 5.11.2009 it appears that direction has been issued that Class -III and Class IV employees who have been regularised, their services also be terminated and dispensed with. This order dated 5.11.2009 appears to be arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for interim order. Until further orders of this Court, the operation of order dated 4.1.2010 passed by the learned single judge, in civil misc. writ petition No. 62910 of 2009, the effect and operation of letter No. LN14763/ Admin. (D) Section/Allahabad dated 5.11.2009 and clarification letter No. 15968/Admin. (D) Section dated Allahabad : November 26, 2009 issued by Registrar General, High Court Allahabad in the matter of appointments of ad hoc Class -III and Class -IV employees and further proceedings before the Committee constituted by the High Court in this matter shall remain stayed.;