J.S. Khehar, J. - (1.) It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner and respondent No. 6 were both inducted into the service of the respondents as Nursing Assistants. The admitted factual position in the pleadings is that the petitioner was appointed as Nursing Assistant on 16.02.2004 and he assumed his duties on 26.02.2004, whereas respondent No. 6 was appointed on 08.03.2004 and he joined his duties as such on 15.03.2004. On the basis of the aforesaid factual position, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is senior to respondent No. 6.
(2.) Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 25.07.2006 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 31.08.2006 due to inadequate work load. The solitary contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in case of retrenchment on account of inadequate work load, it was imperative for the respondents to have followed the principle of 'first come last go' and/or adopt the principle of retaining the senior, yet the respondents wrongfully terminated the services of the petitioner on 25.07.2006 and retained respondent No. 6 in their employment. This, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, not only violates the principle of 'first come last go' but also negates the superior right of the petitioner in terms of the seniority over respondent No. 6.
(3.) In the joint written statement, filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5, it is inter alia asserted as under: ...It is also not denied that since the authorized strength of Nursing Assistant in ECHS Polyclinic, Jhajjar was only one; hence a letter was issued to the petitioner for termination of his service with effect from 31.08.2006 as per the terms of the contract, since the workload pertaining to his trade was inadequate at that time.;