V.M.Sahai, Sabhajeet Yadav - (1.) THE questions arise for consideration are that as to whether the legality or validity of appointment of the petitioner which was subject-matter of earlier writ petition filed by him has attained the finality between the parties? If it is so as to whether same can be subjected to further scrutiny by respondent authorities on account of subsequent decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Appeal (Civil) No. 4092 of 2001, State of U. P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and others, decided on 16.12.2005, which was not related to the petitioner's case and arose out of retrenchments and/or termination of services of ad hoc, daily wage work-charged employees of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (State Agricultural Produce Markets Board) and Market Committees ; and as to whether the termination of the services of petitioner purporting to be in compliance of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 16.12.2005 is justified under law?
(2.) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.1.2006, passed by respondent No. 3, i.e., Director. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow, contained in Annexure-20 to the writ petition whereby the services of petitioner were dispensed with on the grounds mentioned therein. The brief facts leading to the question in controversy involved in the case are that the petitioner having being a postgraduate in Political Science and Law graduate from Allahabad University initially appointed as Administrative Officer in Hindustan Vegetable Oil Corporation in pay scale of Rs. 2,100-3,600 which is a corporation under the Ministry of Food and Supplies and Government undertaking at its Bombey Unit. Subsequently he was promoted as Senior Administrative Officer in pay scale of Rs. 2,400-4,320 w.e.f. 24.2.1989. Thereafter the petitioner has joined as Manager (Administration) in the Consolidated Container India Ltd. at Bombey w.e.f 1.1.1994 in pay scale of Rs. 10,000 per month with other admissible allowances and facilities attached to the post. The respondent No. 2, i.e., Chairman, Mandi Parishad in order to re-organize Legal Cell in Mandi Parishad proposed to establish a full fledged legal section vide order dated 1.1.1996 and established a legal cell with one law officer at headquarter as well as one law officer at Meerut and Kanpur. For Allahabad it was noted that the Principal seat of Hon'ble High Court is at Allahabad hence one officer be posted at Allahabad. Thereafter a decision was taken by the Board of Uttar Pradesh Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow, in its 74th meeting on 8.4.1996 for establishment of the legal cadre and the Chairman was authorized to establish such legal cadre, which is deemed to be decision taken by the Board contained in Annexrue-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner came to know about the aforesaid fact of establishment of legal cell in U. P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad. Lucknow, therefore, he sent his particulars as well as the submission offering his services to the said post of Officer on Special Duty (Legal). Having regard to the requirement of post of Officer on Special Duty (Legal) for Allahabad, the Director, Mandi Parishad vide his letter dated 4.6.1996 recommended for creation of post and sought approval from the Chairman, Mandi Parishad/Principal Secretary (Agriculture), Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow/Agriculture Production Commissioner, Government of U. P., Lucknow and as such the said post of Officer on Special Duty (Legal) for Allahabad was created by the Government of U. P. on recommendations of Director, Mandi Parishad as well as Chairman, Mandi Parishad. A photostat copy of the said recommendation dated 4.6.1996 and approval order dated 5.6.1996 is on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. After scrutinizing the qualification and efficiency of the petitioner he was offered the said post by order dated 4.6.1996 in pay scale of Rs 2,200-4,000 with four special increments. A copy of the order dated 4.6.1996 is on record as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Consequently in pursuance of the creation of the post by the State Government, appointment letter was issued in favour of petitioner by order dated 7.6.1996. A photostat copy of the said appointment letter dated 7.6.1996 is on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It is also stipulated in the appointment letter that there shall be one year probation and after satisfactory service of one year the petitioner shall be confirmed on the said post. The petitioner joined his aforesaid post on 10.6.1996. It is alleged that to strengthen the functioning of the Legal Cell and effective pairvi of the cases filed in Allahabad High Court, the respondent No. 2 has also established a separate office for O.S.D. (Legal) at Allahabad and conferred upon him drawing and disbursing power of his office. A true cop? of the order dated 12.9.1996 is on record as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. A separate budget was also allocated to the petitioner for the purposes of running of his office by the Director. Mandi Parishad vide order dated 5.10.1996 and also conferred the power to sanction leave of the subordinate Staff working under the him by order dated 6.11 1996. True copy of the orders dated 5.10.1996 and 6.11.1996 are on record as Annexures-8 and 9 respectively to the writ petition. It is alleged that the petitioner was continuously performing his duties to the best of his ability and to the satisfaction of higher officers, as such he has been awarded excellent entries for his performance for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998. It is also alleged that the petitioner was appointed on a probation for a period of one year and there was no reference regarding the extension of probation period beyond the aforesaid period as such on expiry of aforesaid period of one year as per settled legal position he shall be deemed to be confirmed on the post in question. But while the petitioner was working on the said post, an order dated 26/28.6.1999 was passed terminating his services with immediate effect in purported exercise of power under U. P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. Feeling aggrieved against which the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 34356 of 1999, C. M. Pandey v. State of U. P. and others. After exchange of counter and rejoinder-affidavits the said writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 9.9.1999 holding the petitioner's appointment as valid and in accordance with the provisions of law and under given facts and circumstances of the case, the order terminating his services was held illegal. A copy of the order passed by Division Bench of this Court is on record as Annexure-11 to the writ petition.
(3.) IT is further alleged that to challenge the aforesaid judgment and order passed by Division Bench of this Court by filing special leave petition before Apex Court initially the State Government has given permission but subsequently after taking legal advice the said permission was withdrawn by the State Government vide its order dated 9.12.1999. A photostat copy of the order dated 9.12.1999 is on record as Annexure-12 of the writ petition. Consequently the special leave petition filed against the judgment and order dated 9.9.1999 was withdrawn by the State Government and the Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the special leave petition on 16.12.1999 as withdrawn. A copy of the said order is on record as Annexure-13 to the writ petition. After withdrawal of the aforesaid special leave petition the Director, Mandi Parishad has passed a detailed order on 20.12.1999 whereby the petitioner has been reinstated in service with all consequential benefits of service. A copy of the order of reinstatement is on record as Annexure-15 to the writ petition. IT is also stated that in the circumstances stated hereinbefore the decision of Division Bench of this Court has attained the finality between the parties upto the stage of Apex Court and State Government has fully agreed with the judgment and observation made by Division Bench of this Court and that the order passed by Division Bench of this Court has been fully complied with and since then the petitioner was continuously working on his post with all satisfaction to the respondents and his services were also stood confirmed by legal implication. After the withdrawal of S.L.P. from Hon'ble Supreme Court after lapse of much time it appears that with a view to harass the petitioner a show cause notice was served to him on 7.5.2002. A true copy of which is on record as Annexure-17 to the writ petition. The said show cause notice was duly replied by the petitioner and thereafter the matter was dropped after being fully satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner. A photostat copy of the reply submitted by the petitioner on 30.12.?002 is on record as Annexure-18 of the writ petition. But all of sudden after delivery of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 16.12.2005 in Civil Appeal No. 4092 of 2001, State of U. P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and others, the petitioner came to know through some reliable sources that the services of petitioner are also being terminated, taking shelter of the aforesaid decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court then he moved a representation through his wife stating therein that his services are not covered by the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Apex Court and that aforesaid decision has been rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court, in cases arise out of termination of ad hoc and daily wage employees of U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Market Committees who were engaged during 1.4.1996 to 30.10.1997, but without considering the facts and circumstances of the case in correct perspective, vide impugned order dated 28.1.2006 the petitioner's services were dispensed with by misinterpreting the facts and circumstances of the case purporting it to be covered by decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court referred above.;