LPA No. 489 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 489 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: December 1, 2009 Gopal Krishan and another ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: None for the appellants No. 1 and 2. Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate, for appellant No.3. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants, who were appointed on adhoc basis in the year 1987 and after rendering service of one year their services were terminated on the ground that the same were no longer required. They filed writ petition challenging the order of termination on the ground that juniors had been retained and order was punitive as the same were on account of their alleged absence from duty at the time of inspection by Sub Divisional Education Officer. 2. The respondent-State sought to justify the impugned order on the ground that the same was according to the terms of appointment and absence from duty could be taken into account for passing the order for LPA No. 489 of 2002 2 which no inquiry was required, unless the absence was made foundation of the order. 3. Learned Single Judge relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1626 held that the impugned order of termination was in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution. It was observed that since the petitioners have not stated that they were not gainfully employed during the interregnum period, they were not entitled to backwages. 4. We have learned counsel for the parties. 5. Since the State has not come up in appeal, there is no occasion to go into the correctness of finding of learned Single Judge that there was violation of Article 311 of the Constitution in passing order of termination simplicitor of a temporary employee, though we have reservation about the same. 6. As regard to payment of backwages, we do not find any error in the view taken by learned Single Judge. In the absence of any statement in the writ petition that the petitioners were not gainfully employed , they were not entitled to any backwages and thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 1, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE