IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1548 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 13.12.2010 Vaish Technical Institute, Rohtak and another …..Appellants versus Sri Krishan and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.R.P.Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellants Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed against an order dated 7.12.2009, allowing CWP No.7416 of 2002, filed by respondent No.1, against the petitioners, claiming reinstatement in service. It is not in dispute that initially, respondent No.1 was taken in service vide order dated 18.8.1988 as a Chowkidar with the appellant institute against hostel funds. Thereafter, he was given regular pay scale vide letter dated 30.10.1990. In the said letter (P2), it is no where mentioned that this regular pay scale is given against hostel funds post. Vide letter dated 4.7.1994 (P3), service of respondent No.1 was regularized as a Chowkidar and the management started deducting CPF contribution from his salary. In the terms and conditions of the letter, mentioned above, it is no where mentioned that respondent No.1 is being regularized against the hostel funds post. Again vide letter dated 2.9.1999, respondent No.1 was informed that he has again been appointed as a Chowkidar against LPA No.1548 of 2010 regular pay scale. We are surprised as to what necessitated issuance of the said letter, once service of respondent No.1 has already stood regularized vide letter dated 4.7.1994. It appears that the management was trying to take undue benefit of the situation in which respondent No.1 was placed being a class IV employee. Communication (P5) indicates that the post of Chowkidar was offered to respondent No.1 against the post of Lab Assistant. Be that as it may, the appellant was never confronted with that situation. Thereafter, vide letter dated 2.11.2001, when respondent No.1 had already worked as a Chowkidar for more than a decade, his service was terminated on a ground that Governing Board has not approved his appointment. Taking note of the above said facts, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1, by observing as under:- “Learned counsel for the respondent contends that no interference in the impugned order is called for, as the petitioner was not appointed on regular post nor his services were either on regular basis, as the appointment letter dated 4.7.1994 stood modified on 2.9.1999 when he was offered post of Chowkidar in the Institute against a post of Lab Attendant. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that once his appointment was not proved, the Institute has no other option but to terminate his services as per the terms of the appointment, by giving one month's salary. On consideration of the matter, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once the services of the petitioner were regularized vide 2 LPA No.1548 of 2010 Annexure P.3, his services could not be terminated by issuing fresh letter of appointment on a temporary post under the garb of promotion to the post of Lab Attendant. In case his temporary appointment was not approved then the respondents were required to offer him post of chowkidar on which he was appointed on regular basis. It is needless to say that condition (iii) of appointment letter is totally arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as no employer can reserve a right to modify or terminate the services of a regular employee with retrospective effect. It is also well settled law that the authorities cannot act in arbitrary manner, a condition in the appointment letter of regular employee, reserving right to terminate the services without assigning any reason by giving notice of one month's or salary or longer period is totally arbitrary and violative of the constitutional right. On appointment of regular basis employee is governed by service rules and the services of regular employee can only be terminated by following due process of law. For the reasons stated, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to appointment on regular basis as chowkidar, and not as Lab Attendant.” 3 LPA No.1548 of 2010 The learned Single Judge has rightly noted that once service of respondent No.1 stood regularized, there was no necessity to issue a fresh appointment letter, as was done in this case. Counsel for the appellant has tried to impress upon us that appointment of respondent No.1 was not approved by the Government. A reading of paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the written statement, no where indicates that the approval was not granted by the Government and further, there is nothing on record to show that ever case was sent to the government for regularization. No case is made out for interference. No case is made out for condonation of delay also in filing and re-filing the appeal as well. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 13.12.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 4