9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant had a lien on the post of Lekhpal. 2. Whether the appellant was on deputation in the Consolidation Department and entitled to revert to his substantive post. Summary: 1. Lien on the Post of Lekhpal: The appellant claimed that he held a substantive post of Lekhpal and had a lien on it. He relied on a letter dated 10.6.63 from the office of the Collector of Moradabad. However, the court found that the appellant did not satisfactorily substantiate his claim of holding the post of Lekhpal in a substantive capacity. The appointment order dated 6.4.53 indicated that his position was temporary. The court emphasized that a lien, as defined in Rule 9(13) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, means the title to hold a permanent post substantively. The appellant's temporary status and lack of confirmation in a permanent post meant he did not have a lien on the post of Lekhpal. 2. Deputation in the Consolidation Department: The appellant contended that he was on deputation to the Consolidation Department and should have been reverted to his original post of Lekhpal instead of being terminated. The court found no documentary evidence to support his claim of deputation. The respondents consistently denied the deputation claim, and the appellant failed to provide any proof to refute this denial. Consequently, the court rejected the appellant's claim of deputation. Termination Order: The appellant argued that his termination was punitive and violated Article 311 of the Constitution. The court noted that the termination order was a termination simpliciter of a temporary employee without casting any stigma or disclosing penal consequences. The High Court had observed that the appellant had several adverse entries in his character roll, justifying the termination. The Supreme Court concurred, stating that a temporary employee has no right to hold the post and can be terminated by giving one month's notice. The court referred to the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, which upheld the termination of temporary employees based on adverse entries. Ex-Gratia Payment: Despite dismissing the appeal, the court acknowledged the appellant's long service of over 18 years and directed the Government of Uttar Pradesh to pay an ex-gratia amount of Rs. 50,000 to the appellant within four months. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the termination order was upheld. The court directed an ex-gratia payment of Rs. 50,000 to the appellant. No order as to costs.
|
