M.L. Singhal, J. - (1.) PARSHOTAM Lal was working on the post of clerk in Panchayat Samiti Nihal Singh Wala. It was a permanent post against which he was working on ad hoc basis. He worked from 25th September, 1984 to 30th September, 1986 on ad hoc basis with intermittent breaks on the said post, though he could be straightway appointed to the post of clerk without punctuating the order of appointment with the words "on ad hoc basis." When it was a permanent post, the order of appointment was punctuated with the words "on ad hoc basis". So as to avoid regularisation.
(2.) POST , on which he was appointed, was advertised in the Daily Ranjit, dated 16th September, 1985, inviting applications from matriculates having experience in the Panchayat Samities. He applied for the post and was selected by the Administrator, Panchayat Samiti Nihal Singh Wala vide his order endorsement No. 4255 -56/DA -I/BC dated 1st October, 1985 in the grade of Rs. 400 -600/ -. He also submitted medical certificate (which is required to be submitted for first entry into Government service) from Civil Surgeon, Faridkot. dated 11th October, 1985. Period spent by him from 22nd September, 1984 to 20th September, 1985 in the service of the panchayat Samiti Nihal Singh Wala was not taken into account for the purpose of regularising and confirming his service in the same post of Clerk. He was entitled to regularisation and confirmation in the same post of Clerk in view of Rule 11(3)(a)(i) & (ii) of the Punjab Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1965). Zila Parishad, Faridkot, in pursuance of letter endorsement No. 920 -52, dated 1st April, 1986, issued a permanent seniority list on 3rd July, 1986 in which 26 Head Clerks/Clerks working in various Panchayat Samities or Zila Parishad, Faridkot, were shown. Parshotam Lai was shown against Serial No. 25 in the said seniority list. Vide order No. 219, dated 30th September, 1986, Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti Nihal Singh Wala, terminated his services. Parshotam Lal challenged order No. 219, dated 30th September, 1986, passed by the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti Nihal Singh Wala, terminating his services being illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional, discriminatory, against the principles of natural justice and in contravention of circulars/instructions issued by the Government of Punjab from time to time, arbitrary, null and void and that he continues to be in the service of the Panchayat Samiti in his previous position with continuity of service with consequential relief directing the Defendants Zila Parishad, Faridkot, and Panchayat Samiti Nihal Singh Wala to reinstate him with continuity of service and with back wages and other attending benefits and in the alternative to pay him liquidated damages equal to the wages which he would have earned, but for the illegal termination of his services vide order No. 219 dated 30th September, 1986, of Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti Nihal Singh Wala, alongwith interest at the rate of 2% per month till actual payment. It was alleged in the plaint that he was not given any opportunity to defend himself before the impugned order was passed. No notice or enquiry was conducted as required by the principles of natural justice before the impugned order was passed. Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti Nihal Singh Wala, had no right or authority to terminate his services as his appointing authority was the Panchayat Samiti under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1965. Vacancy against which he was appointed by the competent authority and by due procedure in accordance with rules was a permanent one and he was working in that post with effect from 25th September, 1984, before his regular appointment on 1st October, 1985. It was not an unanticipated post being occupied by the Plaintiff. As per proviso to Rule 4 of Rules, 1965, a vacancy which could not be anticipated may be filled in by the Zila Parishad or Panchayat Samiti as the case may be for a period of six months or till a candidate is recommended by the Commission or District Committee as the case may be earlier. Appointment of the Plaintiff on temporary basis for six months was unfair labour practice. It ought to have been on probation against the permanent vacancy of Clerk under Rule 11(3)(a)(i) & (ii). On the completion of the period of probation of a person, the appointing authority may, if work and conduct of such a person is satisfactory and his integrity is unquestionable, confirm such person from the date of his appointment if appointed against a permanent vacancy or confirm such person from the date from which the, permanent vacancy exists, if appointed against a temporary vacancy. He was working on the permanent post of Clerk since 25th September, 1984. As such, he had completed more than two years when his services were terminated. He was entitled to all the privileges and protection available to the confirmed employees. Injustice was done to him for no fault of his due to the non application of rules strictly and due to the illegal conduct of the Defendants. Person Junior to him namely Jassa Singh, who figures at serial No. 26 in the seniority list, is still working in the panchayat samiti, Lambi. When a person junior to him still in the job, no pick and choose could be there.
(3.) DEFENDANTS contested the suit of the Plaintiff urging that the Plaintiff was appointed as Clerk for six months with effect from 1st October, 1985 purely on temporary basis by the Administrator, Panchayat Samiti Nihal Singh Wala. As his appointment was for more than three months, the production of medical fitness certificate was necessary under the Panchayat Samiti Services Rules. He was not a permanent employee of the samiti. He was relieved from employment on 30th September, 1986. During 25th September, 1984 to 30th September, 1986, he was working in the samiti for some intervals of times, sometimes on 89 days basis and sometimes on ad hoc basis. In the said seniority list, the names of the regular employees are given at serial No. 1 to 22, whereas the names of the temporary employees are given at serial No. 23 to 26 to show the strength of the employees in the district as neither date of birth, nor date of appointment nor date of regularisation of services in respect of the said temporary employees was given in the list, he was relieved on 30th September, 1986 as his term of appointment expired on 30th September, 1986 He was relieved of services on the expiry of his appointment as per direction of the Administrator, Panchayat Samiti Nihal Singh Wala on 30th September, 1986. His appointment was purely temporary for six months. After break of one day it was extended for another six months ending on 30th September, 1986.;