IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 3967 of 2003
Pankaj Kumar Singh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL HARKAULI
------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Siddhartha Ranjan
For the Respondents: J.C. to G.A.
-----
03/13.01.2010
I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner was initially appointed
as daily wage worker. Subsequently, by the written order dated
25.10.2000, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 4 with the
supplementary affidavit, the petitioner was given an adhoc
appointment. By the impugned order passed on 11.7.2001 (annexure 3
to the writ petition) the appointment has been cancelled.
The counter affidavit filed by the respondents or the termination
order dt. 11.7.2001 does not indicate that any opportunity of showing
cause against the proposed termination or cancellation of the
appointment was given to the petitioner. In fact, the termination order
dt. 11.7.2001., does not even give any reason for the termination. The
reason supplied in the counter affidavit states that there was some
Circular dt. 18.6.93., which prohibited daily wage appointments in
government departments. This reason, even if accepted, can at best
invalidate the daily wage appointment, but not the adhoc appointment.
Further, the counter affidavit says that the appointment of the
petitioner was not according to rules, but other than the circular of
1993, no other rule has been mentioned in the counter affidavit, which
can be said to have been violated while making the adhoc
appointment.
The supplementary affidavit was served upon the respondent
on 4.11.03 according to the endorsement thereon.
In view of the violation of the principles of natural justice, the
impugned order of termination dt. 11.7.2001 (Annexure 3 to the writ
petition), so far as it relates to the petitioner, is quashed and leaving it
open to the respondents to pass fresh reasoned order, after giving
proper show-cause notice, specifying the reasons for proposed
termination of the adhoc appointment in sufficient detail to enable the
petitioner to give an effective reply or defence. The petitioner will be
reinstated and paid all the back wages of which he has been deprived
because of the impugned order.
This writ petition is allowed accordingly.
(Sushil Harkauli, J.)
S.M.