IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13652 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 01.04.2009 Vipin Beniwal .... PETITIONER Versus The Fatehabad Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Fatehabad ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Asish Chander, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. C.R. Dahiya, Advocate, for the respondent. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the decision dated 30.7.2008 (Annexure P-2) of the Board of Administrators of the respondent bank and the order dated 30.7.2008 (Annexure P-3), vide which the services of the petitioner have been terminated. In the present case, the father of the petitioner was a regular employee (Junior Accountant) of the respondent bank. He died during service on 4.8.2005. On an application, claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground was considered by the Board of CWP No. 13652 of 2008 -2- Directors of the respondent bank in terms of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Govt. Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 2003'), which were adopted and made applicable to the respondent bank. On 15.9.2006, the petitioner was offered appointment to the post of Clerk. In pursuance of the said appointment letter, the petitioner joined on the post of Clerk on the same day. After about one year and nine months i.e. on 30.6.2008, the services of the petitioner were terminated grossly in violation of the principles of natural justice, without any show cause notice and without providing an opportunity of hearing. In the termination order (Annexure P-3), it has been stated that the Financial Secretary and Principal Secretary Haryana Government, Cooperation Department, vide his letter dated 27.6.2008 has ordered that services of the petitioner be terminated as his appointment is in contravention of policy of Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Employees. It is further stated that in view of the said order, the Board of Administrators vide its resolution dated 30.7.2008, decided to terminate the services of the petitioner with immediate effect. The petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the aforesaid orders. It is the case of the petitioner that the new policy of the State of Haryana i.e. Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Govt. Employees Rules, 2006 came into force with effect from 1.8.2006 and in view of several decisions of the Supreme Court and this CWP No. 13652 of 2008 -3- Court, the new policy will not be applicable in case of the petitioner, because his father died on 4.8.2005 and in view of this fact, in the case of the petitioner, the Rules of 2003 will be applicable, under which the petitioner was already appointed in accordance with law. Therefore, his termination on the ground that his appointment was contrary to the new Rules i.e. the Rules of 2006, is illegal and arbitrary. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Abhishek Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 2007 (2) SCT 457 as well as Division Bench judgments of this Court in Neeraj Malik vs. State of Haryana and others, 2007 (1) RSJ 235 and Lalita Sharma vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009 (1) RSJ 354. Learned counsel for the respondent could not controvert the aforesaid legal position and the fact that case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground was to be considered in accordance with the Policy/Rules applicable on the date of death of the employee. Undisputedly, in this case, on the date of death of father of the petitioner, Rules of 2003 were applicable, according to which the petitioner was considered and appointed as Clerk on 15.9.2006. However, in the written statement, it was submitted by the respondent that on the day the petitioner was offered the appointment on the post of Clerk, he had not passed his B.Sc. (IT) examination, therefore, he was not qualified. When this fact was controverted by the petitioner by filing replication, on 6.2.2009, counsel for the respondent sought adjournment to verify the CWP No. 13652 of 2008 -4- assertions made by the petitioner in the replication and it was further stated that if it is found that the petitioner had actually qualified B.A examination before 1.8.2006, the respondent bank would have no objection in retaining him in service. Today, counsel for the respondent has very fairly stated that the petitioner had passed his B.Sc. (IT) examination on 13.7.2006. Therefore, when the offer of appointment was given to him, he was fully qualified to be appointed as Clerk as per the Services Rules of the respondent bank. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that services of the petitioner were illegally terminated on the ground that his appointment was contrary to the Policy/Rules of 2006, which were not applicable in the case of the petitioner, as his father had died on 4.8.2005. Further, before terminating the services of the petitioner, neither any show cause notice was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was granted to him. Therefore, his termination was also in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, the decision dated 30.7.2008 (Annexure P2) of the Board of Administrators of the respondent bank and the order dated 30.7.2008 (Annexure P3), vide which the services of the petitioner have been terminated, are set aside and the respondent is directed to re-instate the petitioner forthwith with all the consequential benefits. April 01, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj/vkg JUDGE