- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. Challenging the termination order dated 31st of May, 1999 passed under the U. P. Temporary Government Services (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, by Additional Director Industries (Karmik) the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) THE petitioner claims that he was appointed on the post of Assistant Manager in pursuance of an advertisement for appointment after facing a Selection Committee constituted for holding interview. On 28-4-1980 he joined as Assistant Manager at Pratapgarh and has not been communicated any adverse entry except two for the last more than 12 years. Against the adverse entries awarded for the year 1983 and 1987 he has already preferred the representations which are pending and has thus completed more than 19 years of service on the post of Assistant Manager and his service was abruptly terminated by the termination order dated 31st May, 1999. No opportunity of hearing before termination and discharging the petitioner from the post of Assistant Manager was afforded. In para 12 of the writ petition although it has been stated that he has been discriminated in the matter of employment in as much as several juniors to him have been retained on the post of Assistant Manager including Shri S. C. Shukla and A. A. Zaidi. But no such argument was advanced at the time of hearing of the writ petition by Shri B. P. Srivastava, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit, the defence set up is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Manager, purely on temporary and ad hoc basis which is evident from the appointment letter filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and he was awarded several adverse entries of serious nature in the character roll in the years 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1997-98 and these entries were duly communicated to the petitioner. Copies of these adverse entries have been annexed as Annexures CA-1 to CA-7. The contention that the petitioner has made representation as stated in the writ petition has been denied. The integrity of the petitioner was found doubtful. The termination order has been sought to be justified on the ground that the petitioner was a temporary employee and his services were terminated as per the relevant Rules after giving a month's notice. The termination order is simplicitor causing no stigma. Plea that the petitioner has alternative remedy to file a claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow was also raised in the para 12 of the counter-affidavit. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been working since long on the post of Assistant Manager and while entertaining the writ petition this Court by the order dated 15th of June, 1999 stayed the operation of the termination order dated 31st of May, 1997, Annexure 2 termination order the writ petition and as such at this distance of time it is not appropriate termination order dismiss the writ petition. Reliance has been placed on two judgments of this Court: (i) State of U. P. v. Dr. R. P. Goel & Ors. , 2000 (18) LCD 183 and Shashi Bala Sinha & Ors. v. State of U. P. , 2002 (1) LBESR 443 (All) : 2002 (20) LCD 33.
(3.) IN contra the learned standing Counsel submitted that passing of interim order by this Court will not confer any right in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has to establish his case on merits in order to succeed in the writ petition. So long as no illegality is pointed out in the termination order, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in the writ petition. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Asrey v. District Judge, Bijnore, 2004 (2) ESC (Alld) 1204. The plea that the writ petition is liable to be thrown on the ground of alternative remedy was also agitated. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is not desirable to relegate the petitioner to the U. P. Public Services Tribunal. The matter has been pending in this Court for a period of more than 6 years and the petitioner has been working on the strength of the interim order, it is appropriate to decide the matter finally on merits keeping in view the fact that only small controversy is presently involved and the respondents have filed a counter-affidavit in the writ petition.;