Ram Prasad and ors. Vs. Chairman Town Area Committee and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- s.u. khan, j.1. at the time of hearing no one appeared for respondents 1 to 3 accordingly only the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners were heard. copy of original counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 was not available on record hence its duplicate copy was supplied by learned counsel for the petitioner.2. the petitioners were working as sweepers in town area committee, kora jahanabad, district fatehpur. their services were terminated on 14.3.1990 under the provisions of u.p. temporary government servants (termination of service) rules, 1975. said orders have been challenged through this writ petition. in this writ petition an interim order was passed on 6.9.1990 staying the operation of the impugned orders and directing that petitioners should be paid their current salary every month. it has been stated in the rejoinder-affidavit that petitioner nos. 3 and 5 pyarey lal and raja ram have died and petitioner no. 7 manohar lal has retired. accordingly writ petition survives only on behalf of the remaining five petitioners.3. it has been stated in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the writ petition that petitioners were not being paid their salaries since november, 1988 hence on 28.8.1989 they filed representation before chairman town area committee for payment of salaries. copy of representation is annexure-1 to the writ petition which bears the date 28.8.1989. due to inadvertence in para 8 of the writ petition date of the representation has wrongly been mentioned as 28.8.1990.4. petitioners were not paid their salaries but were suspended on 3.9.1989. ultimately punishment order was passed on 8.2.1990 which was served upon the petitioners on 22.2.1990 (para 20 of the counter-affidavit). the said punishment order is annexure-5 to the writ petition. three punishments were awarded one was non-payment of any further amount during suspension period except suspension allowance, the other was stopping of one annual increment, third was censure entry. within three weeks from service of order awarding minor punishment petitioners' services were terminated.5. the allegation that since november, 1988 petitioners had not been paid their salary has been admitted in the counter- affidavit. the only allegation against the petitioners repeatedly made in the counter-affidavit is that they did not allow the dally wagers who had been engaged as scavengers to clean the city and they even beat them. the allegation of the petitioners that neither during suspension period nor after order dated 22.2.1990 they were paid suspension allowance/ subsistence allowance has not been denied in the counter-affidavit. in this regard it has been stated that suspension allowance could not be paid as petitioners themselves made it impossible to pay the said amount (para 20 of the writ petition). it has been stated in the said para that even after receiving minor punishment order on 22.2.1990 petitioner did not join the duty hence they could not be paid suspension allowance even though it was lying ready for disbursement.6. from the above it is quite clear that petitioners services have been terminated by way of punishment. it is not termination of services of temporary employees simpliciter. petitioners being sweepers are lowest paid employees. if they demanded the salary which had not been paid for about 10 months, it was quite genuine, instead of paying salary to the petitioners, respondents engaged daily wagers. this was utterly mala fide action of the respondents. they should have paid the salaries to the petitioners. moreover, three weeks from service of order of minor punishment petitioners services were terminated under the aforesaid rules of 1975. accordingly, it had direct nexus with the allegations against the petitioners and initiation of inquiry which resulted in the order dated 8.2.1990 served upon the petitioners on 22.2.1990. even if it is assumed that petitioners were temporary still their services could not be terminated in the manner in which it was done. it cannot be justified under the provisions of aforesaid rules of 1975. the action of the respondents of not paying salaries to the petitioners, not paying suspension allowance to them and terminating their services as they pressed for wages is absolutely mala fide.7. accordingly, writ petition is allowed. impugned orders in respect of surviving petitioners is set aside.