The dispute herein is as to whether the petitioner was a temporary or regular/confirmed employee. The petitioner relies upon the report of the Central Nazir, approved by the District Judge, to submit that he was a confirmed employee, therefore, his services were wrongly terminated while taking recourse to the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rule, 1975, which in any case, according to him, were not applicable to the employees of the District Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, the fact that gratuity, group insurance and G.P.F. were paid to the legal heirs of the petitioner itself proves that he was treated as a regular employee.
On the other hand Ms. Bushra Marya, learned counsel for High Court submits that, had the services of the petitioner been regularized/confirmed, there would have been a mention of the same in the service book of the petitioner. As there is no such mention , therefore, the claim being set up by the petitioner is false. She also submits that the report of the Central Nazir and the endorsement of the District Judge thereon are all fabricated and the same are not available on record of respondents.
Learned Counsel for the respondent shall seek instructions as to under which Rule/provision of law, gratuity was paid to the legal heirs of the petitioner after this death. She shall place the relevant provision before this Court on the next date.
Put up this case on 12th November, 2014.
Order Date :- 17.10.2014 M.A.A.