news details |
|
|
| HC quashes termination order of excise guards with directions | | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu | Feb 29
Justice Nirmal Singh of J&K High Court, Jammu Wing, in a two writ petitions, challenging the termination of petitioners who were appointed in the month of July 1993 and July 1992, has quashed the termination order with the direction that the petitioners shall be entitled to the same relief as has been allowed by the respondents in favour of similarly situated persons.
In the writ petitions it has been alleged that petitioner Parvez Ali and Ors engaged on March 30, 1993 and thereafter was appointed as Excise Guard on July 2, 1993, the petitioners Charan Dass and Ors engaged on temporary basis in July 1992 whereas one of the petitioner was engaged in the year 1989 and other was engaged in the year 1993. It is further submitted that some of the petitioners filed a petition in the state High Court on the basis of directions passed in the said petition, the services of the petitioners came to be regularized in the year 1998. The grievances of the petitioners is that the respondents in pursuance to a judgment passed by the High Court in a petition titled Bodh Raj and Ors and decided on July 5, 2000, terminated the services of the petitioners along with some others. It is stated that as per the judgment passed in the said petition, the Adhoc arrangements which were made after 1994 were to be cancelled but the respondents wrongly placing reliance on the judgment and terminated the services of the petitioners though they have been engaged prior to 1994.
Adv Veenu Gupta appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were engaged prior to 1994, therefore, the observations made by this court in the judgment would not apply to the case of the petitioners and the respondents have wrongly passed the order impugned terminating the services of the petitioners.
Justice Nirmal Singh after hearing both sides observed that respondents’ authorities have granted the benefit of regularization to similarly situated persons mentioned in the petition. Therefore, the respondents cannot make any discrimination and adopt different yardsticks for a category of employees who are on the same footing as those who have been allowed the benefit. Court is of the opinion that the respondents have wrongly passed impugned orders rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Court allowed the petitions and quashed the impugned termination orders with the direction that petitioners shall be entitled to the same relief as has been allowed in favour of Joginder Singh and ors. In case the petitioners were engaged prior to Joginder Singh and Ors then the petitioners would be given the benefit of regularization by placing them over and above the said persons. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
