SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Guj) 129

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :C.K.Thakker
MAHENDRAKUMAR VEERABHAI MAKWANA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 2140 of 1986
Decided On : 09/01/1990

Advocates Appeared: A.D.Padival, P.M.THAKKAR, R.M.DOSHIT

Headnote:

Service Laws –Termination of Services – Petition is filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Commander, State Reserve Police (SRP) force, Group-XII, respondent No. 2 herein terminating his services–Held, After an utterly unsustainable termination order of service the employer cannot deny back wages on the ground that the workman had to maintain himself and his family members by doing something – In the instant case, it is not even contended by the respondent-authorities in the affidavit-in-reply that after the impugned order of termination, the petitioner was serving elsewhere or was gainfully employed or earning anything – In view of the above facts and circumstances and the judgments cited before court, court is clearly of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to full back wages – IN the result, all the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents are rejected – The impugned order at Annexure b is quashed and set aside by directing the respondent-authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service as if the impugned order had never been passed – Petition Allowed

C. K. THAKKER, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner against the order dt. 26/02/1986 passed by the Commander, State Reserve Police (SRP) force, Group-XII, Gandhinagar, respondent No. 2 herein terminating his services.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that after he was duly selected, he was appointed as Carpenter by an order dt. 14/05/1984 with effect from that date in the pay scale of Rs. 350-560. The said appointment was purely on temporary basis. He was posted at Nadiad. It is the case of the petitioner that even though his services were satisfactory, by the impugned order dt. 26/02/1986 his services came to be terminated with effect from 30 days from that date. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said order is not an order of termination simpliciter, but by way of penalty and punishment. Since it is punitive in nature, the said action can be taken in consonance with the principles of natural justice by issuing notice, calling for explanation and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Since it is not done, the impugned order requires to be quashed and set aside.

( 3 ) MISS Doshit appearing for the respondents contended that the petition is required to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not availed of an alternative remedy which is available to him under Rule 89 (2) of the gujarat Police Manual, 1975. She has further submitted that even on merits, the impugned order is of termination simpliciter and it does not cast stigma. Finally, she has submitted that even if the petition is allowed and the impuned order is quashed and set aside, the petitioner is not entitled to all the reliefs which he has prayed in the petition.

( 4 ) SO far as the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition is concerned. Miss Doshit for the respondents, submitted that the petitioners has not availed of an alternative remedy. In this connection she has invited my attention to rule 89 of the Gujarat Police Manual, 1975. Rule 89 reads as under :"89. Temporary Appointments : (1) (a) Orders sanctioning every temporary appointment which is not for a definite period should make it clear that the appointment is made "until further orders". Appointments of temporary Government servants for definite period should be restricted to exceptional cases. (b) The services of a temporary Government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by that authority to the Government servant. (c) Where the temporary Government servant has put in service for a period exceeding one year, the period of such notice shall be one month and where such government servant has put in service for one year or any period less than one year the period of such notice shall be one week : provided that the services of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith by payment to him of a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice, at the same rates at which he was drawing pay and allowances immediately before the termination of his service, or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of the notice period. (2) (a) Where a notice is given by the authority other than the Government terminting the services of a temporary Government servant or where the services of any such government servant are terminated by an authority other than the Government either on the expiry of the period of such notice or forthwith by payment of pay plus allowances, the Government may, of its own motion or otherwise re-open the case and after calling for the records of the case and after calling for the records of the case and after making such inquiry as it deems fit : (i) confirm the action taken by the authority; (ii) withdraw the notice; (iii) re-instate the Government servant in service; or (iv) make such other order in the case as it may consider pro





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top