STATE OF MANIPUR REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (HOME) TO THE GOVT. OF MANIPUR Vs. SANGAMSEL MARING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed under Rule 2(2) of Chapter V -A of the Gauhati High Court Rules by the respondents of W.P.(c) No. 1083 of 1995 against the order dated 08.07.2002 passed in the aforesaid Writ petition by the Learned Single Judge.

(2.) BY impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and in consequence set -aside the termination order dt 5.6.84 of the respondent( writ petitioner ) so also the appellate order passed by the departmental authorities dt 5.8.95.

(3.) THE respondent herein (writ petitioner) was appointed temporarily as Rifle man in the services of State of Manipur on 8.3.78. He then, joined the services on 21.3.78 and was accordingly posted as Rifleman in 6th Bn Manipur. The respondent being a temporary hand, his services were terminated under proviso to Sub Rule 1 of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules 1965. (for short hereinafter called "The Rules of 1965) vide order dt 5.6.84. The respondent then on 12.5.95 (annexure -P3) filed one representation to Minister against his termination order requesting him to take sympathetic decision in his favour. The authorities by their order dt 5.8.95 rejected the representation cum appeal on the ground of delay in making such representation/appeal because it was found that the same was made almost after 11 years from the date of termination. It was also rejected on merits saying that there are no grounds for withdrawing the termination order. It is against this order; the respondent felt aggrieved and filed the writ petition out of which this appeal arises questioning the legality and correctness of the termination order. The writ petition was contested by the appellant herein inter -alia on the ground that respondent being a "temporary appointee" under "the Rules of 1965" and further not having been confirmed, on his post, his services could be terminated by taking recourse to the provisions of Rules 5 (1) of the Rules of 1965. It was thus contended that termination order was passed strictly in accordance with the requirement of the Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965 and hence it does not call for any interference. It be thus upheld.