ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Bhagwati Prasad Singh, learned Counsel for both the petitioners and Sri V.B. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for respondents.
(2.) BOTH these writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts and are being decided by this common judgment. Facts and pleadings in both the writ petitions being almost similar, it is sufficient to refer pleadings in Writ Petition No. 11557 of 1989 (Ranjit Singh v. Vice Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur and others). The petitioner was appointed by order dated 3rd August, 1987 on the post of Motor Mechanic in the pay scale of 470-735 on purely temporary/fluff hoc basis. The said ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was made on an application submitted by the petitioner dated 16th July, 1987 containing recommendation of one R.K. Srivastava, Dean and Head of Agriculture Engineering Department on the post of Motor Mechanic by the Vice-Chancellor vide order dated 2nd August, 1987 The petitioner join on 3rd August, 1989 and was working. The said ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 8th June, 1989 by the Vice-Chancellor with immediate effect. A show cause notice was issued on 8th June, 1989 to Dr. R.K. Srivastava. In the notice it was mentioned that on the post on which the petitioners, Ranjit Singh and Sudhir Prakash, were appointed, appointments were already made in the year 1984 of Sri Dilsher Khan and Naseem Haider, who have been promoted on these posts. In the said show cause notice Dr. R.K. Srivastava was directed to show cause as to why salary paid to them be not recovered they having been appointed without mere being any post. Dr. R.K. Srivastava submitted reply by letter dated 12th June, 1989 that person responsible for duplicate appointment on the post of Motor Mechanic are the Establishment Clerk, Office Superintendent of the office of the Director (Administration and Monetary). The petitioners by these writ petitions have challenged the order dated 8th June, 1989 terminating their services. By an amendment allowed on 2nd September, 2003, the petitioner has been permitted to add a relief for declaring the impugned order of termination dated 8th June, 1989 as illegal and void being retrenchment under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the writ petition Dilsher Khan and Naseem Haider were impleaded as respondents No. 3 and 4. Although in the writ petition it was stated that appointments of respondents No. 3 and 4 were not valid and they were not appointed on the post of Motor Mechanic, no prayer was made for quashing their appointments. The respondents No. 3 and 4 despite service have not appeared nor file any affidavit. One of the respondents. Naseem Haider already retired four years back. No interim order was passed in the writ petitions. The petitioners after their termination did not continue in the employment. One of the petitioners, Ranjit Singh also died on 8th April, 2003.
(3.) SRI Bhagwati Prasad Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, challenging the order terminating services of the petitioners, submitted that the termination of the petitioners' services was without any valid cause. He contended that termination of services has been made on the pretext that post of Motor Mechanic on which petitioners were given temporary/fled hoc appointments are filled up, which not being a correct fact, the action of the respondents is arbitrary. He further contends that termination of petitioners' services is also in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hence petitioners are entitled for reinstatement with all benefits. Reliance has been placed by the petitioners on the judgments reported in 1992 All L.J. 1165, Krishna Kumar Dubey v. U.P. Food and Essential Commodities, Corporation and another; 1992 All L.J. 1186, Brijesh Kumar Srivastava v. Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P., Lucknow and others; (1991) 2 UPLBEC 1326, Belal Ibne Mohd. Siddiqui and others v. Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, U.P., Lucknow and others; (2003) 10 SCC 283; Talwinder Singh v. P.O., Labour Court and another and (2003) 8 SCC 334, IIP. Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. v. Ramanuj Yadav and others.;