Court No. - 27
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25383 of 2012 Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K.C. Sinha,Prabhash Pandey,Sunil Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present petition is being decided at this stage itself.
Present petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 28.3.2012, whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated.
Facts in brief of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as Driver on dailywage basis in the year 1998 and thereafter vide order dated 27.9.2000 he was given a pay scale but his contractual status remained unchanged. It is not in dispute that vide circular dated 11.6.1980 it was provided by the State Government that the vehicle (Jeep) shall be maintained from the tax collection of Gram Panchayat and payment of salary of the Driver shall also be made from the same account. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged on contract basis with a condition that his salary etc. shall be paid from the realization of tax of Gram Panchayat account. A perusal of the impugned order also indicates that to this effect the petitioner has given an affidavit dated 9.11.2000 accepting the aforesaid conditions and he specifically accepted the condition that in case there is no sufficient realization of such fund, his services shall automatically stand terminated. Perusal of record also indicates that vide order dated 27.9.2000 he was granted pay scale, however, due to services of the petitioner being on contract basis with a specific condition that in case there is no sufficient recovery in district village fund to maintain the vehicle etc. his services shall automatically stand terminated. As per the impugned order services of the petitioner on contract basis have been terminated on the ground that in PLA account there is no sufficient realization of amount. It has also been noticed that the official vehicle is standing in a condemn condition for last several years and is beyond repairs.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier the petitioner has approached this Court claiming pay scale in terms of the revision made under the 6th Pay Commission by filing Writ Petition No. 49024 of 2010 (Sushil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others), which was disposed of vide order dated 4.10.2010 with a direction to the respondent no. 4 to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Due to non-compliance of the aforesaid order the petitioner had to file contempt application, wherein affidavit of compliance was filed on 27.3.2012 and it is only very next day services of the petitioner were terminated by the order impugned herein on 28.3.2012 and therefore the order is absolutely mala fide. It was also submitted that there is realization in the village fund and as such it is incorrect to say that there is no realization in village fund therefore, the services of the petitioner can be maintained.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the salary of the petitioner was to be paid out of 10% of the total realization of taxes by the Gram Panchayat. Since the realization of fund could not be done, his services were terminated as per the condition of the appointment letter dated 27.9.2000 and there is no illegality in the order impugned herein. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was working on a contract basis on non government job as a Jeep Driver and as such he is not entitled for any benefit of any pay revision under 6th Pay Commission as per Government Order dated 8.12.2008, therefore, submission is that the petitioner was working on non-government post as per the letter of appointment is not maintainable.
I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record.
On perusal of record I find that the services of the petitioner were on contract basis with the condition that in case of non realization of sufficient fund his services shall automatically stand terminated and he has specifically accepted the same as noted at page 79 of the paper book. During course of argument it transpired that it is also not in dispute that even at present no fresh hand in place of the petitioner has been engaged. As such, in view of non-realization of 10% of the total amount of realization tax, termination of services of the petitioner on contract basis as per appointment letter being a non government servant is not illegal.
In such view of the matter, present petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.4.2017 Lalit Shukla