JUDGEMENT
SAURABH LAVANIA,J -
(1.)Heard Sri G.C.Verma, learned counsel for the review applicant/petitioner and learned counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Amit Sharma.
(2.)Present review application has been filed for reviewing the judgment and order dated 27.01.2017, whereby this Court after recording the finding, quoted hereinunder, dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the order dated 09.08.1998 passed by U.P. State Public Services tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in claim petition No.278/V/(F)/1992, whereby Tribunal dismissed the claim petition and affirmed the order of termination dated 31.03.1992.
"Petitioner was engaged as Junior Clerk in a short term vacancy on temporary basis on 22.06.1991 and after joining of regular employee, he was ceased. Admittedly, petitioner had no right to hold post since his appointment was temporary and on short term basis. Hence, we find no error on the part of Tribunal in dismissing claim petition."
(3.)Before the Tribunal, the petitioner challenged the order of termination dated 31.03.1992 and also sought the consequential reliefs. The reliefs sought by the petitioner before the Tribunal are quoted under for ready reference:-
"Wherefore, it most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be please to much the impugned order dated 31.03.1992 (contained in Annexure no.1 to this petition) with a declaration that the petitioner continues in his service and is entitled to his fully pay, which he would have been entitled in absence of the impugned order.
Any other orders or direction appropriate in the circumstances of the case and deemed just and proper by the Hon'ble Tribunal may also be passed along with cost of this claim petition."
The Tribunal after considering the material available on record dismissed the claim petition of the petitioner vide order dated 05.05.1998, with following observation:-
"From the perusal of annexure No.1 it is clearly proved that the petitioner was working on daily wages basis and his services had been terminated w.e.f. after noon of 31.03.1992. The petitioner being a daily wager he could not be treated to be ad-hoc appointee even he could not be regularized under any of Government order for regularization of ad-hoc services of Government Servant. In these circumstances I am fully convinced with the contention of the learned Presenting Officer that the petitioner has no lien in respect of the post of a Junior Clerk, as such the termination order is legal and justified."
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.