news details |
|
|
| Court orders cancellation of appointment | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Apr 08- Quashing the appointment as well as subsequent cancellation orders of the petitioner on May 1, 1995 and September 9, 1995, Justice Sunil Hali of J&K High Court Jammu Wing today directed the respondents to treat the petitioner to have been appointed on May 1, 1995.
Justice Hali in the approved for reporting judgment observed that while analyzing the fact and stand of the respondents, it can safely be stated that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1985 not 1995 as stated by him in the writ petition. This was a typographical error. It is crystal clear that in order accommodate one Romesh Lal, petitioner was thrown out. The legislature enacts the law but it has to be administered by the agencies of the executives. They are required to administer the laws fairly and without any prejudice. The prejudice and unfairness is visible in this case. With these observations Court quashed the order impugned dated September 9, 1995 and directed that petitioner treated to have been appointed on May 1, 1995.
Deputy Advocate General Vinod Bakshi appearing for the respondents stated that the petitioner is not on the rolls of the State Government and as such no relief can be given to him. Communication dated July 29, 2004 addressed by the respondent 4 to respondent No 2 clearly indicates that petitioner was in employment on July 29, 2004.
Court said that this is not important factor in enforcing the right to which the petitioner is entitled to and directed respondent to treat the petitioner as helper with effect from July 1, 1995 and in case he is not on the roll of the department he be reinstated and allowed to work. He will also be entitled for monetary benefit till July 2004. However, he will not be entitled to receive any monetary benefit for the period he has not remained in service but that period will be counted towards its seniority. The petition is accordingly to allowed subject to the payment of Rs 3000 to be paid by the incumbents who were holding the job at the time when petitioner’s termination was ordered.
This significant judgment has been passed in a petition filed by one Harbans Lal who was appointed as helper vide SRO 64 of 1994 on May 1, 1995; the said appointment order was cancelled on September 9, 1995 by the same officer. The order reveals that petitioner came to be appointed after relaxing age bar by the administrative department. The order speaks that petitioner had continuously worked for seven years as on March 30, 1994 and as a result of which he becomes eligible for regularization. The appointment order gets cancelled within a three months without disclosing reason for the same. The petitioner challenged the same through Advocate SK Anand
The basis for cancellation of order issued by Regional Director Social Forestry Project in which stated that petitioner’s name has been wrongly included in the list instead name of one Romesh Lal. According to the statement showing the names of casual labourers/ daily rated workers issued by DFO Kathua, the petitioner is stated to be appointed in the year 1985 and continued in the service till 1994.JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
