J.S. Trivedi, J. - (1.) The plaintiff-respondent was appointed a temporary Overseer in the Public Works Department of the U.P. State in the year 1948. In the year 1953 general rules of appointment were framed under G.O. No. 230/1 IB-953 dated 30th January 1953. After the reframing of the aforesaid rules every temporary employee including the plaintiff gave in writing an undertaking to the State Government that they were prepared to be re-employed from March 1953 on terms of employment for temporary Government servants which were in force under the aforesaid notification. The plaintiff continued to be employed as a temporary Overseer till 24th January, 1958 when he was served with a notice dated 24th January 1958 intimating him that his services shall stand terminated after the expiry of one month. An appeal against the order was filed by the plaintiff before the State Government. The State Government rejected the representation of the plaintiff by its order dated 9th April. 1958. The suit out of which this appeal arises was then filed by the plaintiff-respondents for a declaration that the termination of his service was illegal and for arrears of pay.
(2.) The appellant State of Uttar Pradesh contested the suit. The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit holding that the services of the plaintiff were terminated for no fault of his and as such the termination amounted to punishment. The plaintiff was held to be entitled to claim benefit under Articles 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India. The lower appellate court confirmed the decree of the trial court, hence this second civil appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh has contended that the plaintiff-respondent being temporary servant, his services were liable to be terminated by a simple order so long as the order was not mala fide order. He has further contended that the plaintiff-respondent having accepted re-employment under Rules of 1953. it was not open to him to challenge the applicability of those rules. He has further contended that the plaintiff-respondent had not in his pleadings stated that the acceptance of reemployment was under some coercion or fraud and, therefore, the lower appellate Court was not correct in holding that the acceptance of reemployment was the result of some undue influence exercised on the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance on Union of India v. Pandurang Kashinath More, A.I.R. 1962 SC 630 for the proposition that where improper conduct is alleged it must be set out in all particulars and an arbitrary and discriminatory character must be established before the order is struck down for violating Article 16 of the Constitution. Reliance has also been placed on Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1970 SC 158 in support of the proposition that it is impossible to define before hand all the circumstances in which the discretion for termination can be exercised.;