- (1.) Heard Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners in the leading writ petition as well as Shri Anoop Kr. Tripathi, Shri A.K. Malviya, and Mohd. Akram, learned counsels for the petitioners in the connected writ petitions and Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri J.N. Maurya, Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri C.K. Rai, Standing Counsel for the respondents. Shri Pradeep Kumar has appeared for the contesting respondents.
(2.) In this group of cases, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned termination order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad under Section 34 of Municipalities Act, 1916. The petitioners have further prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit them to work in Nagar Palika Parishad, Farrukhabad and to pay their salary from month to month with all consequential benefits.
(3.) On 20.2.2013 the connected Writ A No.9243 of 2013 was taken up and this Court had proceeded to pass following orders:- "Sri Pradeep Verma Advocate has accepted notice for the Nagar Palika Parishad, Farrukhabad. The petitioners were continuing in the Nagar Palika Parishad and it appears that some enquiry was set up in relation to their appointments. They filed writ petitions before this court that were disposed of on 4th of May, 2001 directing the District Magistrate to proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law and till such orders are passed the petitioners were permitted to work and entitled to salary. Pursuant to the said orders, the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad has now proceeded to pass the impugned order on the basis of a report of the City Magistrate dated 9th of October, 2012. The District Magistrate, according to the petitioners has passed the order without issuing any show cause notice or supplying copy of the report dated 9th of October, 2012 on the basis whereof the petitioners' appointment has been found to be invalid. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contends that this amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the material which was sought to be relied upon to dispense with the service of petitioners has not been provided to them. He further contends that the District Magistrate has not applied his independent mind to the relevant provisions and to the relevant documents that were to be gone into for the purpose of deciding the claim of the petitioners. Prima facie the contentions raised appear to be correct. Until further orders of the Court, the operation of the impugned order dated 29.11.2012 shall remain stayed and the petitioners shall be allowed to discharge their duties. Learned counsel for the respondents are granted three weeks time to file a counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioners shall file a rejoinder affidavit within a week thereafter. List thereafter.";