- (1.) PARITOSH K. Mukherjee, J. It appears that on earlier occasion, on December 1, 1995, this case had to be adjourned on the ground that Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Additional Advocate-General was out of station.
(2.) THIS case was heard, at a considerable length, on previous occasion as well. The case was marked as part heard, after hearing Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the office of the Advocate General (present Additional Advocate General) and Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the annexures are in Hindi, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to translate them in English. Sri Ravi Kant has produced the English translation of the Hindi annexures. Today, when the case has been taken up, neither Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, Additional Advocate General, nor any learned Standing Counsel is present, nor any prayer for adjournment of the case has been made on behalf of the respondents. Since I have already heard Sri Rakesh Dwivedi on the previous occasion, at a considerable length, I propose to decide the case after hearing Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, petitioner challenges the order of termination dated August 5, 1991, which is set out at Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In serial number 6, the name of the petitioner is appearing, who has been described as clerk on daily wages in the State Law Office, along with other 15 persons.
(3.) SRI Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of termination of the petitioner was unwarranted as even after passing of the order of termination, petitioner was allowed to continue till 28th February, 1992. Even thereafter, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondents are taking work from the petitioner. The petitioner is still working but is not being paid salary. Thus, according to SRI Ravi Kant, the order of termination has not been passed on proper application of mind by the respondent authorities. Sri Ravi Kant next contended that although the services of as many as 15 persons were terminated with the petitioner, but thereafter other persons have been taken back and their services too have been regularised. Therefore, the petitioner should not have been discriminated, and he too is entitled for regularisation of his services. In support of his aforesaid contention, he drew my attention to paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 at' the writ petition. The specific averments made in the aforesaid paragraphs are that S/sri Lalit Kumar Srivastava, Himanshu Behari Lal Gaur, Sri Prakash, Jai Krishna Lakheda, Mohd. Asif Ali, Anil Kumar and Prakash Chandra were reinstated/regularised. These persons were terminted along with the petitioner through the impugned order, dated August 5, 1991. S/sri Lalit Kumar, Himanshu Behari Lal Gaur and Sri Prakash were appointed along with the petitioner and the record of service of the peti tioner is not inferior to the aforesaid employees.;