TAPEN SEN,J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Jhunjhunwala, learned Government Pleader No. III for the respondents and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
(2.) BY order dated 3.8.2002 as contained in Annexure 4, the petitioner was removed from service on the ground that he was appointed irregularly after the cut off date i.e. 1.1.1988. The respondents have brought on record the letter by which the aforesaid cut off date was made a yardstick for purposes of terminating the services of persons appointed thereafter i.e. after 1.1.1988. . Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a reply to the counter affidavit wherein he has stated at Paragraph 7 that in fact the petitioner had entered into the service initially in the month of April, 1986 and he was regularized in the Work Charged Establishment on 28.11.1990 by Annexure 1. In support of the aforementioned contention to the effect that he was regularized with effect from 28.11.1990, the petitioner has relied on Annexure 1 and in support of the contention that he was already working continuously and had entered in service initially in April, 1986, the learned counsel relies upon Annexure 6 appended to the reply to the counter affidavit. From Annexure 6, the name of the petitioner is placed at serial No. 3 and it is a list of work charged/muster roll employees working in the department. The petitioner has clearly been shown to be working since April, 1986. There is no reply forthcoming from the respondents in relation to the aforementioned fact to the effect that the petitioner has been continuously working since April, 1986 i.e. prior to the cut off date of 1.1.1988. On the contrary, from the counter affidavit of the respondents, it appears that they have taken into consideration the status of the petitioner only after his regularizatlon in the work charged establishment in the department from 28.11,1990 but they have not taken into consideration his status as a muster, roll employee from 1986. To that extent, therefore, it cannot be said that the reasoning given by the respondents in Annexure 4 is proper.
(3.) ADDITIONALLY , in a similar matter, in the case of Abhay Kumar Pandey, who was also removed on the basis of the aforementioned circular/policy of the Government relating to the cut off date, the matter fell for judicial scrutiny vide CWJC No. 699 of 1998 and the Honble Single Judge of the Patna High Court relying on two judgments of the Honble Supreme Court of India held that an employee who has continued on a post for several years should not be terminated. Those judgments were the cases of Roshni Devi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 59 and Union of India and Ors. v. Kishorilal Bablani. AIR 1999 SC 517, respectively.;