S.N.SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) THESE two petitions involve similar controversy to be decided and with the consent of the parties, they are being disposed of by a composite decision.
(2.) SUBJECT -matter of impugnment in the present petition is the order dated 24 -7 -2002 passed by Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Sohrab Gate, Meerut whereby terminating the contract as a consequence flowing from general order of the Corporation dated 22 -2 -2002 and consequential order dated 27 -2 -2002. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44688 of 2002 has been filed as a composite petition on behalf of seven petitioners. Similarly Writ Petition No. 40874 has been filed by equal number of petitioners for similarly relief. The petitioners claim to have been inducted into the service of the Corporation in the year 1999 on contract basis though on varying dates. The matrix of allegations in the petition is that the petitioners by reason their being dependants of retired employees of the Corporation, were appointed on contract basis and before harnessing them to the work as Conductors they were imparted brief training so as to make them familiar with the rules and regulations of the Corporation and also of road travelling.
(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and also Sri Avinish Mishra appearing for the respondents at prolix length. The learned Counsel for the petitioner canvassed that persons appointed contemporarily alongwith the petitioners in the year 1997 have been retained in service while dispensing with the services of the petitioners in the Corporation and this action of the Corporation wears the taint of arbitrariness and suffers from the vice of discrimination and the order terminating the services of the petitioners commends itself to be set aside. He further canvassed that the petitioners were rightly engaged as conductor under the policy decision made by the Corporation and abnegation of rights created by the Corporation under the policy decision sans opportunity of hearing renders the order vitiated in law and on this count alone, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. He further submitted that the work and conduct of the petitioners during the period had been unimpeachable and they being unemployed persons and having regard to the fact that vacancies are still there and also taking into reckoning the fact that they are dependants of retired employees of the corporation and they were imparted training, the termination of their contract by one stroke of pen without affording opportunity of hearing leaves a gaping hole in the balloon of fairness expected of the competent authority in such matters. Sri Avinish Mishra learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties in opposition contended that under the policy decision taken by the Corporation as far back as in June 1994, certain private buses were articled to be plied under agreement by the Corporation in June, 1994 in certain contingencies and for emergent need of peak season for which it was decided to engage conductors on contract basis from amongst retired employees of the Corporation and Army Personnel. A committee proceeds the submission was constituted for the said purpose headed by Regional Chief Manager and two other members consisting of Regional Managers (Service). Conditions stipulated in the policy decision dated 22 -2 -2002 for engagement being that such engagement on contract basis should be from amongst the Apprentices of the Corporation, retired employees of the Corporation and Ex -servicemen in case of peak season or in other contingencies. It is further contended by the learned Counsel that petitioners do not fall in any of the categories provided in the policy decision and hence they were rightly disengaged by the impugned orders. He further contended that there is no indicia of discrimination at all inasmuch as 97 persons engaged in the year 1997 constitute categories different from the petitioners and they come within the periphery of the categories prescribed under the policy decision of the Corporation. It is further submitted that they are covered by the general orders issued by the Head Office and it was for this reason that they have been retained and allowed to work. The allegations of elements of arbitrariness, discrimination in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution have been repudiated in no delphic terms.;