SATISH CHANDRA PATAIRIYA Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-2004-9-179
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 29,2004

Satish Chandra Patairiya Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.B.MISRA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S. Sandilya and V. Sandilya, learned Counsels for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Singh and Sri Mohan Yadav, learned Standing Counsels for the State respondents. 1. In this petition prayer has been made to quash the orders dated 18.06.1992, 20.07.1992 and 23.07.1992 passed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively,
(2.) BY order dated 18.06.1992 (Annexure -8 to the writ petition) the Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, U.P., Lucknow had issued a circular, whereby in view of Uttar Pradesh Ayurvedic and Unani (Clerical Cadre) Services Rules, 1991 the post of Junior Clerk was brought under the purview of U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission and thereby restrictions have been imposed in respect of adhoc appointment, as there is no provisions under the service rules for making adhoc appointment, therefore, in consonance to the provisions of Rules the appointment of the persons deployed on daily wages or on adhoc basis were to be dispensed with immediate effect. Such directions issued by the circular dated 18.06.1992 were followed with immediate effect. Consequently, by an order of the Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Adhikari, Allahabad dated 20th July, 1992 (Annexure -6 to the writ petition) services of the petitioner along with some other persons appointed temporarily on adhoc basis were dispensed with. In sequence to this another order dated 23.07.1992 (Annexure -7 to the writ petition) was issued by the Incharge Medical Officer, Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Allahabad Nagar, whereby the temporary/adhoc service of the petitioner was dispensed with effect from 23.07.1992 forenoon by an order simplicitor. According to the petitioner, in the year 1989 an advertisement was published for making appointment to the post of Pharmacist in Government Ayurvedic Hospitals and the advertisement did not mention appointment to be made on adhoc basis, however, the petitioner along with others participated in the selection and was appointed as Pharmacist on adhoc basis on 20th March, 1991 by an order of the Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, U.P. The appointment of the petitioner was made on adhoc basis absolutely temporarily for one year or till arrival of duly selected candidate. Certain other conditions were given in the appointment order dated 20' March, 1991 (Annexure -3 to the writ petition). Consequent upon, the petitioner joined duty on 07.0:5.1991 and was discharging his duties till 23,07.1992, however, by the impugned termination order dated 23.07,1992 without any rhyme or reasons, without any show cause or notice and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in derogation to the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution service of the petitioner was dispensed with.
(3.) AGAINST the above termination order the petitioner has come to this Court by way of present writ petition, and when this petition was filed, this Court was pleased to pass an interim order dated 19.08.1992 staying operation of the order dated 23.07.1992. The interim order dated 19.08.1992 reads as follows: - 'Issue notice. Until ordered otherwise, the operation of the impugned order dated 23.7.92 shall remain stayed. The petitioner shall be entitled to the payment of the salary and other benefits. However, it is made clear that this order will be effective only if no substantive appointment has been made on the post held by the petitioner and the said post has not been abolished.' ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.