P.P.Gupta - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Mahmood Ahmad Siddiqui, has prayed for quashing of the order of termination dated 8-5-1978 and the order dated 11-3-1980 in appeal.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Inspector in the Branch Office at Lucknow of the Cooperative General Insurance Society Ltd. on 15-2-1971. THE said Society was nationalised and was merged in the United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. under the General Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971. THE petitioner was confirmed on the post of Inspector with effect from 1-1-1972. On 15-4-1974 the office of the Unit Co-operative General was closed and the employees thereof were required to work at the office of the United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. at Allahabad. THE petitioner also started working there. Even after the transfer, the petitioner and other employees retained their permanent status and the petitioner continued to work as Inspector. On 29-4-1976, the Central Government framed General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other conditions of service of Development Staff) Scheme, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme). Under the said Scheme, the petitioner was categorised as Field Worker under Paragraph 4 (5) of the Scheme. The said Scheme provided that the Field Workers were eligible for being considered for categorisation as Inspector Grade I or Grade II, as the case may be, depending on their scheduled premium income for the year 1976. If the scheduled premium income of a Field Worker for the year 1976 was not less than Rs. 45,000/-, he was allowed to continue for the year 1977 as a Field Worker. If his performance for the year 1977 conformed the standard laid down in sub-para (2) of para 5 of the Scheme, he was to be categorised as Inspector Grade I or Grade II, as the case may be, with effect from 1st day of January, ?1978. Presumably, because the performance of the petitioner for the year 1977 did not conform to the standard laid down under the Scheme, his services were terminated on 8-5-1978 in accordance with sub-para (4) of para 5 of the Scheme. He preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed on 11-3-1980. Aggrieved from the said order of termination the petitioner has come up before this Court.
(3.) THE only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the impugned order of termination was violative of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as he was not given any notice prior to the termination to offer his explanation and, therefore, he was denied the right of hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents were heard at length and the record of the case was perused. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was working as Inspector with the respondents on which post he was confirmed on 1-1-1972. It is also not disputed that the terms and conditions of his employment were regulated by the Scheme which was framed in the year 1976 and under the J said Scheme the petitioner was designated as a Field Worker. Depending I on the performance, the Fi eId Workers were to be categorised as Inspector Grade I or Grade II under para 5 of the said Scheme. Sub-para (3) of para 5 further provided that if the Field Worker whose scheduled premium income for the year 1976 was not less than Rs. 45,000/-, was to continue for the year 1977 as a Field Worker. If, however, his performance for the year 1977 conformed to the standard laid down in sub-para (2) he was to be categorised as Inspector Grade I or Grade II, as the case may be with effect from 1st day of January, 1978. Sub-para (4) of para 5 further provided that the services of such of the Field Workers, who could not be allowed to continue as Field Workers under clause (a) of sub-para (3) or could not be categorised as Inspector Grade I or Grade II under clause (b) of sub-para (2), shall after a review of their performance for the relevant year, be liable to termination immediately on expiry of the period of 30 days from the date on which notices were served on them. For the sake of convenience and proper understanding, sub-paras (3) and (4) of para 5 of the Scheme are reproduced below : "(3) (a). A Field Worker whose scheduled premium income for the year 1976 is not less than Rs. 45,000/- shall be allowed to continue for the year 1977 as a Field Worker. (b) If the performance of a Field Worker referred to in clause (a), for the year 1977 conforms to the standard laid down in sub-paragraph (2), he shall be categorised accordingly with effect from 1st day of January, 1978. (4) The services of such of the Field Workers who cannot be allowed to continue as Field Workers under clause (a) of sub.paragraph (3) or who cannot be categorised as Inspector Grade I or Inspector Grade II under clause (b) of sub-paragraph (2), shall, after a review of their performance for the relevant year, be liable to termination immediately on expiry of the period of 30 days from the date on which notices were served on them." ;