RAVINDRA KUMAR TEWARI Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NALKOOP ANURAKSHAN KHAND BHADOHI
LAWS(ALL)-2007-5-67
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on May 14,2007

RAVINDRA KUMAR TEWARI Appellant
VERSUS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NALKOOP ANURAKSHAN KHAND, BHADOHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD counsels for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed under U. P. Dependents of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974, vide order dated 15.3.1989, appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition on compassionate ground on account of accidental death of his father late Sri Prem Shankar Tiwari, who was a permanent Tubewell Operator in the Irrigation Department. THE letter of appointment of the petitioner dated 15.3.1989, is as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... His grievance is that by the impugned order dated 21.4.1989, passed by the Executive Engineer, his services have been terminated without any notice or opportunity, which is as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... It appears that the services of the petitioner were terminated in terms of the appointment letter in which it was provided that the services could be terminated without notice to him.
(3.) THE controversy involved in this writ petition is covered by the decisions of this Court in catena of cases. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25956 of 1997, Ajay Kumar Sharma v State of U. P. and others, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 719 : 2000 (2) AWC 1020, decided on 10.1.2000, may be referred to in this regard wherein it has been held that appointment made under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, is permanent in nature and cannot be terminated. Hence the condition in the appointment letter that services of the petitioner could be terminated without any notice is against settled position of law. Services of employee cannot be terminated without giving any opportunity of hearing and except in accordance with law. Following the ratio laid down in Ajay Kumar Sharma's case, (supra), the writ petition is allowed. Since petitioner is continuing in service in terms of interim orders dated 21.8.1990 and is getting salary, month by month, question of issuance of any direction for payment of salary does not arise. It is made clear that in the circumstances the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits of permanent appointment. No order as to costs.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.