KIRAN CHOUHAN Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners Kiran and Arka have challenged their oral termination orders. The petitions are being dealt together and this common order shall govern both the cases.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed as Safai Karmcharies on 3.1.2013 and 12.7.2013 respectively and they had joind duties thereafter, however after having worked for one year their services were terminated orally, stating that their services were no longer required and Counsel urged that such a termination of the petitioners is illegal, inoperative. Counsel prayed that the petitioners may be allowed to continue to work and their oral termination be quashed.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners has relied on Hari Narayan Sakya v. State of M.P. and others [2000(3) MPLJ 351], to state that this Court had under similar circumstances held that the termination was illegal since it was against the rules and Government instructions and proper opportunities of hearing were not granted to the petitioners and hence the Court had ordered their reinstatement by placing reliance on AIR 1990 SC 1402, AIR 1991 SC 309 and AIR 1998 SC 3261. Counsel prayed that the same benefit be given to the present petitioners also.