R. A. Sharma, J. - (1.) PETITIONER claims to have been appointed as a Driver on Daily Wages Basis in January, 1991 It appears that he continued to work in that capacity upto September, 1991. Vide order dated 1-10-1991 petitioner was appointed in a leave vacancy as a fulfiedged Driver for a period of 35 days. A copy of this order has been filed as annexure "4" to the writ petition By order dated 21st September, 1992 the services of the petitioner have been terminated and the directions have been issued for the realisation of the amount which has been paid to him for the period after his tenure came to an end. It Us against this order that this writ petition has been filed.
(2.) AS mentioned above petitioner was initially appointed on Daily Wages basis and subsequently was appointed in a leave vacancy for a limited period. He as such does not have any right to the post. Supreme Court in Director v. Smt P. Srivastava, JT 1992 (4) SC 489, has laid down that the appointment made for a fixed period comes to an end automatically after the expiry of the period for which .the employee was appointed. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the services of the petitioner have been regularised can not be accepted. There is no such order of regularisation of his service. Although the petitioner was appointed for a fixed term but it appears that petitioner continued to work even after the expiry of the period for which he was appointed. If an employee, who is appointed for a fixed term, continues to work after expiry of the term, he does not become a regular and permanent employee. His service can be terminated at any time after the expiry of the term. Order terminating the service of the petitioner after the expiry of the term can not be said to be illegal. In the impugned order it has been mentioned that bis continuation after the expiry of the term was on account of the manipulation by the petitioner in the record and also on account of fact that he did not produce the appointment order whereby, he was appointed in a leave vacancy for a fixed period of 35 days. Ordinarily an employee who continues to work after the expiry of his term is entitled to the payment of salary for the period during which he has actually worked but if the working of the employee has been due. to any fraud, misrepresentation, concealment or manipulation by him the position may be different in the writ petition it has been averred that impugned order was passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. An employee, who was appointed for a fixed term and his service has been terminated after the expiry of that period or who was working on Daily Wages basis or was a casual or temporary employee is not entitled to an opportunity of being heard before termination of his service. But such an employee is entitled to the salary for the period during which he has actually worked. But if the employer intends to withhold the payment of (the salary for the period during which he has worked or want to recover the salary already paid by him for that period, it is incumbent on him to glue a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employee concerned even if such an employee is alleged to be guilty of any misconduct, manipulation, forgery, fraud or misrepresentation. In the instant case such an opportunity, was not given to the petitioner.
(3.) IF an order has been passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to a person who was entitled to it. it is open to the aggrieved person to move an application before the authority which has passed the adverse order for recalling that order and if that authority is satisfied that the order was passed in violation of Principles of natural justice it is bound to recall it and pass a fresh order after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to him It is as such not necessary for this Court to go into this controversy at this stage as in our opinion the proper forum for the petitioner is Executive Engineer who has passed the impugned order before whom petitioner should make a representation containing all his grievance, so far as the payment of the salary for the period during which he has worked is concerned. In case such a representation is made within a period of two months from today the same shall be decided by speaking order within a further period of two months and the order so passed will be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.;