J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) The Union of India, defendant - appellant, has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Patiala, dated 3rd Oct., 1979, whereby the decree of the trial Court decreeing the plaintiff's suit was maintained.
(2.) Parkash Lal plaintiff - respondent was appointed as tower Division Clerk in the Office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner on 8th Dec., 1964, and, according to the plaintiff, he was appointed to a quasi - permanent post with effect from 8th Dec., 1967. Later on he was transferred to the Office of the Director, Census Operations, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide order dated 27th May, 1970 where he had joined his duties on 1st June, 1970. The plaintiff further alleged that he was further , transferred by the Director to the Office of Regional Tabulation Officer, Patiala, vide order dated th March, 1971, where he joined his service on 15th March, 1971. On 2nd Dec., 1971, he received an order of his termination dated 1st Dec., 1971, issued by the Director, Census Operations, Punjab, that his services would stand terminated with effect from 31st Dec., 1971. The plaintiff challenge of this order of termination dated 1st Dec., 1971, on the ground that the same was illegal ultra-vires, and null and void on a number of grounds, including the one, which is the subject matter of this appeal, that a number of persons junior to him were kept in service while he being senior was arbitrarily removed from service and, therefore, the order was arbitrary, illegal and void. The suit was contested on behalf of the Union of India and number of objections were taken in the written statement. It was pleased that on his fresh appointment to the Census Department, the plaintiff was taken as a temporary employee and be was never declared to be a quasi - permanent employee. It has also been pleaded that the plaintiff was found inadequate for the post and was having temperamental deficiency. It has also been pleaded that the services of the plaintiff were terminated on the abolition of the post of L. D. C. in the Regional Tabulation Office, Patiala. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the order dated 1-12-71 removing the plaintiff from the service passed by the Director of Census Operations, Punjab, Chandigarh, is illegal, ultra vires and null and void? OPP. 2. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable ? OPD: 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court - fee and jurisdiction ? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action ? OPD. 6. Relief. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit as it came to the conclusion that "after considering the facts of the case and law point involved I hold that order of termination of the service of the plaintiff dated 1-12-71 and 2-12-71 terminating his service passed by the Director Census Operations, Punjab, was Illegal, ultra vires, null and void a junior persons to him were kept in service on the abolition of the post and there is no evidence that services of the plain tin were terminated because of bad record, therefore, I decide this issue in favour of the plaintiff, "In appeal, this finding of the trial Court has been maintained by the learned District Judge. He has also relied upon The Manager, Govt. Branch Press and another Vs. D. Ballappa, A.I.R. 1979 S C 429 and has observed (it seems erroneously) that therein it has been held that "where the services of a temporary Government Servant were terminated without giving any reasons while some employee junior to him were retained, then he terminated of the services were made arbitrarily." Feeling aggrieved against this, the defendant has come up in appeal to this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that after the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.B. Balliappa's case (supra) a case was referred to a Division Bench of this Court in Krishan Chand Goyal Vs. Punjab State and another (R.S.A. No. 632 of 1980 decided on May 7, 1980 , by Dhillon & G.C. Mital, JJ.) because it was considered necessary in view of the earlier Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Mr. Y.K. Bhatia Vs. The State of Haryana and another, 1977 (1) S.L.K. 85 After considering the various judgments of the Supreme Court and D.B. Balliappa's case (supra). It has been held by the Division Bench that:- (i) The fact that the service of temporary Government Servant is terminated, either In accordance with (he conditions of appointment of service rules, while his juniors are retained in service per he would not prove unequal treatment nor would it be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (ii) If in a given case the temporary Government servant is able to show that the simple order of termination of service in accordance with the terms of appointment or service rules was actuated by improper motives or on charge of unfair discrimination specifying the facts in that regard and those facts are either not controverted or stand proved, then that simple order of termination of service may be quashed by a Court of law even if he was the junior - most. " The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his case is fully covered by proposition No. (i) as laid down by the Division Bench and, therefore, in view of this the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed.;