—'•-°. ^AAf^ -r3<^.^""<&y^ Ds^isl©riBeneft .-^^:" r?'ssf°.:: '^'"" ^? )^7T7 S' INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.A.3^^2009 D.B. APPLICANT f^^i^W^ ^".. ^'',-1 RESPONDENTS ^Sf^^^^ Sec. t.^.? NARENDRA PRASAD TIWARI S/o C.P. Tiwari Aged about 46 years, R/o Veterinary Hospital, odgi, Tah Surajpur District Surguja {C.G.} VERSUS 1. State ofC.G. through Secretary veterinary Ser^ice, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Joint Director, veterinary Service3ilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Deputy Director, Vetermary Service, Ambikapur Distnct Surguja (C.G.) 4. Veterinary Astt. Surgeon., Odgi, Tah Surajpur^Distt. Surguja(C.G.) l7 ^ t^ ^^y- "^•'^•^K £^4- frlr^-^'^^ WMT APPEAL.ARMSING OUT OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 3584 of 1990 FILED BEFORE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR, NOW ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE BENCJI l^ " CONSISTING HON'BLE SHRI PRITINKER DIWAKER IN THE WRIT PETITION N0.332/2005 ON DATED 02.07.2009. ^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W.A. No. 387 of 2009 Appellao-t Narendra Prasad Tiwari Versus Respondents State ofC.G. & others WRITAPPEAL UNDER SECTON 2(11 OPTHE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT fAPPEALTO DIVISION BENCHi ACT.2006 DB: Hon'ble Mr. I. M. Quddusi, & Hon'ble Mr. Prashaiit Kuinai' Mishra, JJ. Shri B. K, Chakraborty, Advocate for ttie appellant. if\ Ms Deepali Paadey, Advocate for tlie respondents/ State. O RD E R (ora« ( Passed on this 8th day ofApril, 2010) Per I.M.QuddusiijJ. Heard leamed counsel appearing for fhe writ appellaat as weU as learaed counsel appeariag for fhe respondents/State. This writ appeal has been filed agaiast the iiiipugned judginent aiid order dated 2nd July> 2009, passed by fhe leamed Siagle Judge in W.P. (S) No. 332/2005 ( Narendra Prasad Tiwari Vs. State ofM. P. & otliers), disxnissuig fhe writ petition. Brief facts, iii nutshell, are tiiat the appeUant was appoitited on the post of Vaccinator on teraporary basis on fixed pay of Rs. 350/- p.ia. by order dated 1.9.1984, passed by fhe Deputy Director, Veteriiiary Services, Anibikapur, disttict Surguja. He reiaaiaed absent from duty from 1.3.1985, Thereafter, he caoie to join his duties on 25.3.1985 but he was not allowed to jom. Thereafter, the appeUant approached fhe respondent No.3 with a request that fhe respondent No.4 niay be directed to pennit flie petitioner to joia his ..^^v^^ \^ 6. duties but he was reappointed on 17.7.1990 by order passed by fhe Deputy Director, Vetermary Service, Ambikapur, distdct - Surguja^ when fhere was baii unposed by fhe Goverament on appomtaients, Therefore, immediately, the service of the appellaat was termiaated vide order dated 9.11.1990. The appellant filed the origiaal application before the State Admiaistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. After dissolution of ttie Tribunal fhe petition was received on transfer to this Court aad was registered as W.P.(S) No. 332/2005 and fhe same was disiaissed on 2.7.2009. Honl3le Apex Court has laid down ia the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla1 that a temporary govemment seryaat has no right to hold the post. It has furtihier been held fhat whenever fhe eniployer is satisfied fhat fhe work asid conduct of a teniporaiy servant is not satisfactory or fhat his contiauaiice ia service is not ia public interest on account ofhis unsuitability, misconduct or iaefficiency, it may eifher tenmnate his seryices in accordaace with fhe terms aiid conditions of fhe ser^ice or the relevaat rules or it raay decide to take punitive action against fhe teniporaiy goverainent servaat. In fhe case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and others2 fhe Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down fhat the temporary or ad hoc eniployees have no right to contmuaace ia service. In fhe iastaat case, tbe appeUaa.t was engaged on fixed inonfhly wages. He reniauied absent froni duty for a loug tirae and fherealter (9^<3^ he was not allowed to join fhe duties but thereafter iii 1^1 he was given reappomtaxent but m fhe circumstaaces fhat there was a ban 1 (1991) 1 SCC691 2 (2006) 4 SCC 1 /f!E -^-^" ^o 7. on appoin.toient, th.erefore, his appoiatment could not have been done, his sendces were terminated by aa order passed after four inonfhs froin fhe date of fhe reappouitaient. Therefore, the appellaat has no right to continuaace. In view of the above, we do not find aay iUegality or impropnely ia the impugned order dated 2. 7.2009. We up hold the same aad dismiss fhe writ appeal, No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur