IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1584 of 1989 Date of decision:14.05.2010 Shri Radhey Krishan ….Petitioner versus The Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, through its Registrar. …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Mr. Amrit Paul, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the order of termination of the petitioner from service as a Sweeper, issued by the respondent- University w.e.f. 17.09.1988. The admitted case is that he was appointed to a regular post on probation for a term of one year and it was extended from time to time till he was served with termination through the impugned notice. The learned counsel would contend that as per the terms of appointment issued on 18.09.1986, if during the probation, the work and conduct were not found satisfactory, the appointment could be terminated on one month's notice from either side. He points out to the fact that in the impugned order, the termination was to take effect as eo instanti which was against the terms of employment. Civil Writ Petition No.1584 of 1989 - 2 - 2. If we go by the letter of the terms of appointment, it undeniable that the termination was not in accordance with the terms. The petitioner was doing a job as a Sweeper and the question of providing to him re-employment on the only ground that the termination order effected nearly 2 decades ago suffered from a technical lapse for want of a notice would, in my view, be not appropriate. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner however refers to a decision in Ramesh Kumar Versus The Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and another-1989(3) SLR 586, that dealt with the case of appointment of an Assistant Director, Physical Education on probation and the termination of services after the expiry of period of probation was found to be illegal. The petitioner cannot derive any strength from this judgment for we are dealing with a case of termination of service during the period of probation. If there is any illegality that is attached to the order, it is the want of notice by a period of one month. We are again considering a case of an appointment of a Sweeper which is a Class-IV post that does not require any skill and taking up the case after 22 years after the case was filed, and his termination was made, it shall be quite needless to provide him employment to the same post. 3. Though I hold that the order of termination was not as per terms of employment and it suffered from vice of want of notice, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if the petitioner is rewarded with compensation. The petitioner had merely 2 years of service as a Sweeper and the case has been pending since long for more than 22 years. In my view, it would be just and adequate if the Civil Writ Petition No.1584 of 1989 - 3 - respondent is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- in stead of a direction for reinstatement. The amount shall be paid within 8 weeks from the date when the order is brought to the notice of the respondent, failing which the respondent shall become liable to pay also interest at 9% per annum. 4. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) 14.05.2010 JUDGE sanjeev