- (1.) HEARD Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri I.S. Tomer for the petitioner and Sri Harish Chandra Pathak, learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) PETITIONERS herein were engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin and Peon respectively under the respondents. They claim to have been appointed on the regular post of Collection Amin and Collection Peon by order of the Sub. Divisional Magistrate, dated 13th September, 1995. They also claim to have joined on the said posts and pay their salary. However, it is said that on the oral order of the Tehsildar, who is authority subordinate to the Sub. Divisional Magistrate, payment of salary of the petitioners was stopped as is evident from the note written by the Bill Clerk dated 6.10.1995 to this effect.
(3.) BEING aggrieved, petitioners filed this writ petition and this court on 13.12.1995 passed an interim order directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in service and pay them salary, provided, the appropriate authority has not already served notice of termination upon the petitioners. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is firstly that the appointment having been made by the Sub. Divisional Magistrate who was the authority competent in this regard, a subordinate officer i.e. Tehsildar could not have ordered for stopping the payment of salary. Second submission is that at no point of time any order terminating their services was passed. By his oral order Tehsildar has virtually terminated their services in violation of the order of the Sub. Divisional Magistrate. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to para 12, 13 and 14 of the writ petition and the reply contained in the counter affidavit of the State, submitted that the said facts had not been denied, instead, a bald averment has been made that the Tehsildar being authority immediately subordinate to the Sub. Divisional Magistrate was competent to take such action. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in pursuance to the interim order petitioners were allowed to work but were not paid their salary.;