R.A.Sharma - (1.) PETITIONER was appointed in 1956 as Honorary Social Worker in the office of the Assistant Welfare Officer, Kanpur. Later on by an order dated 29-9-1959 the petitioner was appointed to the temporary post of Inspector in the Administrative Board established under U. P. Women's and Children's Institution (Control) Act, 1956 with the following conditions 5 (i) he will be on probation for a period of six months ; and (ii) the appointment is temporary and his services are terminable without notice on abolition of the post. In pursuance of the aforesaid appointment letter, the petitioner joined as Inspector under the Administrative Board and continued to work in that capacity for about eleven years. In July, 1970 the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 26-3-1970 by an order dated 15-7-1970. Against the said order of termination of service, the petitioner tiled a suit, which was dismissed against which he filed an appeal before the learned District Judge. During the pendency of the appeal U. P. Public Service (Tribunal) Act, 1976 came into force on account of which the appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned District Judge was abated and its record was transferred to the U. P. Public Service Tribunal. Lucknow (here-in-after referred to as the Tribunal). The Tribunal by its order dated 7-7-1978 has dismissed the petitioner's appeal.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of the termination, of service and the order of the Tribunal on three grounds, namely, (i) the impugned order of termination of service was passed without giving any notice and without giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner ; (ii) as per condition imposed in the order of appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner's services could have been terminated only on the abolition of the post, which he was holding ; and (iii) one month salary has not been paid at the time of the termination of his service. As mentioned hereinbefore, the petitioner was appointed in 1959 to a temporary post on probation for six months and since then he has been working right upto 1970 when his services were terminated If an-employee has worked for about eleven years, even if he was purely temporary, the fairness demands that the employer atleast should give him a reasonable opportunity of being heard before termination of his service. Such opportunity may not be necessary under any statutory service rules but in view of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution the employer is required to act fairly and reasonably. Removing a person after 11 years of service will have the effect of making him jobless and unemployed, as he becomes over age for any other job. Such action as that of removal after the employee has worked for a considerable long period should be taken only when it is found absolutely necessary and that too in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Removing a person after 11 years of service without giving him atleast reasonable opportunity of being heard cannot be said to be a reasonable and fair action on the part of the employer, specially when the post on which he was working has not been abolished. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Dr. Raj Kumar Misra v. State of U. P., 1988 UP LB EC 17, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has laid down as follows ;- "Even the termination orders cannot be sustained amongst them one was appointed in 1966 and another in 1973, the third in 1980 and fourth and fifth in 1983 and 1984 respectively, Keeping an employee temporary for 15 or 20 years and then terminate him with one month notice is both unjust and unfair. It deprives the employee of all benefits of his service. Such action is arbitrary and precious". The above principles may not apply if the person appointed on temporary basis has not worked for considerable long time before termination of his services. As mentioned earlier the appointment of the petitioner was to a temporary post of Inspector with two conditions, namely, that he will be on probation for a period of six months and his services are terminable on abolition of the post. It is not disputed that the post on which the petitioner was working has not been abolished. If a person is appointed for a fixed period or for the period determinable on the happening of some future contingency, his services cannot be terminated unless the term of his appointment conies to an end of the contingency subject to which he was appointed has taken place, except for the misconduct. Petitioner's appointed though temporary in nature but was to last till the post is abolished. In the absence of any abolition of the post, petitioner's service was not liable to be terminated except for the misconduct in accordance with law.
(3.) THE third plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the payment of one month salary cannot be accepted. In the absence of any statutory rules of contract of service, the payment of salary cannot be treated to be a condition precedent for the exercise of employer's right to terminate the service. In the instant case no such condition can be inferred from the order of appointment or from any rules. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. The impugned order of termination of service dated 15-7-1970 (Annexure VI), judgment of the learned Munsif dated 4-12 -1976, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and the order of the Service Tribunal dated 7-7-1978 are quashed.;