GOVINDBHAI KANABHAI MARU Vs. N K DESAI DISTRICT JUDGE NAROL AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein challenges the order dated 2 (Annexure-F) terminating his service on the ground that his world was not satisfactory. Mr. A. D. Padival learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged than the impugned order is legally not sustainable because according to him the said order is based on several reports referred to in the affidavit-in-reply stating that the petitioners work was not satisfactory. According to Mr. Padival the termination was with a stigma and hence the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to be heard. It is not disputed that the petitioner was not given any show cause notice or other opportunity to explain his conduct. Mr. Padival has further urged that although the petitioner was described as a part time servant doing the work of sweeper cleaning lavatory etc. but in fact he was made to work for 5 to 6 hours a day and hence he should be treated as a full time servant. In his submission the impugned order deserves to be struck down as the same is violative of principles of natural justice.

(2.) Mr. H. B. Antani learned A. G. P. has urged that the petitioner was in a part time employment working for about couple of hours doing the sweeping and cleaning work in the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.) at Dhandhuka. According to Mr. Antani the petitioner was employed purely on a temporary basis for a limited time everyday and that his wages were paid from the contingency funds. Hence according to him the petitioner was not entitled to be given any show cause notice before termination of his service. Mr. Antani has relied on a single Judge judgment in Kartar Singh Jati Singh v. State of Patiala & East Punjab State Union & Anr. AIR 1955 Pepsu 25 wherein it is held: According to Pepsu Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules. 1955 Part-II contingency staff is no part of any regularly constituted service in the State. That being so it cannot be said that employees on the contingency staff are employed in any civil service.

(3.) The submission of Mr. Padival that the petitioner should be treated as full time servant must be rejected for the reason that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was in fact made to work for 5 or 6 hours everyday. Even if there was such an averment it is controverted by the other side. Hence the same is a disputed question of fact which this Court cannot decide in its special jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner wishes to establish that in fact he was rendering service for a whole day and that he should be treated as a full time servant his remedy lies in the Civil Court where he can lead evidence and prove his intention. For the present he is to be treated as a part time sweeper.