IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 43 of 2008 Shankar Lal ...…………. Appellant Versus 1. State of Uttar Pradesh 2. District Magistrate, Almora 3. Chief Development Officer 4. Superintendent, Rajikiya Asharam Paddhati Vidyalaya, Jainty, Almora 5. District Social and Welfare Officer, Almora 6. Shri Govind Lal ...…………. Respondents Ms. Seema Sirohi, Advocate present for the appellant. Ms. Beena Pande, Advocate present for respondent no.1 Mr. Bindesh Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General present for respondent nos. 2 to 5. Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate present for respondent no.6. And Special Appeal No. 168 of 2008 Govind Lal Arya ……. Appellant Versus 1. The Collector, Almora 2. The Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Almora 3. Chief Development Officer, Almora 4. District Social Welfare Officer, Almora 5. Additional Director, Social Welfare, U.P. Lucknow. 6. Superintendent, Rajikiya Ashram Paddhati Vidyalaya, Jainti, Almora 7. Smt. Maya Devi ………Respondents. Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate present for the appellant. Mr. Bindesh Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General present for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and 6. Ms. Beena Pande, Advocate present for respondent no.5. None present for respondent no. 7. Coram : Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Prafulla C. Pant, J (oral) 1. Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 12.2.2008 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ 2 Petition No.2616 (S/S) of 2001 (Old No.8932 of 1991) and Writ Petition No. 5182 (S/S) of 2001 (Old No.30914 of 1996), whereby both the writ petitions are dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant Shanker Lal was appointed by District Social Welfare Officer, Almora on Class IV post, on daily wages, vide order dated 22/29.12.1993 (copy annexure 1 to the writ petition filed by the Shanker Lal). The appointment was temporary in nature. The said order discloses that initially petitioner/appellant Shanker Lal was appointed for 89 days. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.6.1994, Chief Development Officer, Almora appointed the writ petitioner/appellant Shanker Lal in the pay-scale of 750-940 on Class IV post in Rajkiya Ashram Paddhati Vidyalaya, Almora (copy of said order annexure 2 to the writ petition filed by Shanker Lal). The letter of appointment shows that the appointment was temporary in nature, and services of the employee were liable to be terminated, at any time, by giving him one month notice or one month salary in lieu thereof. The temporary appointment was approved by District Magistrate, Almora vide order dated 16.8.1994. However vide impugned order dated 30.8.1994, the Chief Development Officer, Almora on finding that the appointment of writ petitioner/appellant Shanker Lal was violative of Government order, cancelled the appointment of appellant, and appointed Govind Lal Arya (writ petitioner/appellant in Special Appeal No. 168 of 2008), on temporary basis in pay-scale of 750-940. His services were also liable to be terminated by a notice or one month salary in lieu thereof. It is this order which is challenged by Shanker Lal in his writ petition. It appears that appointment letter of Govind Lal Arya, who was working as a daily wage worker since 1998, and got a temporary appointment in place of Shanker Lal, as 3 above, got stuck by placing his appointment letter dated 30. 8. 1994 in abeyance. Said order has been challenged by Govind Lal Arya in Writ Petition No.5182 (S/S) of 2001 (Old No.30914 of 1996), which was also dismissed by the impugned order, passed by this Court. 4. Admittedly, the nature of appointment of both the petitioners/appellants was temporary in the same establishment. Learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the writ petitioners were not entitled to any opportunity of hearing, as their services were liable to be terminated in terms of their appointment letters. Learned Single Judge placed reliance in State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691, in which the Apex Court has held that an ad hoc or a temporary government servant has no right to hold the post, and his services can be terminated in terms of the appointment letter. 5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant Shanker Lal argued that the termination order passed against said writ petitioner is illegal, as by terminating service of one temporary employee, the another temporary employee cannot be appointed in his place. However, it cannot be denied that the service of writ petitioner/appellant Shanker Lal were liable to be terminated in terms of the appointment letter, by giving him one month’s notice or one month’s salary in lieu thereof. It is also pertinent to mention here that in para 7 of the counter affidavit, filed by Govind Lal Arya, in writ petition filed by Shanker Lal, it is stated that Shanker Lal was nephew of the superintendent of the institution and his appointment was manipulated one. In the rejoinder affidavit, though, Shanker Lal has denied the contents of para 7 of the counter affidavit, filed by Govind Lal Arya, it has not been specifically stated that he is not the nephew of superintendent of the institution who allegedly got him appointed. 4 6. In the above circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the order whereby services of the writ petitioner/appellant Shanker Lal are terminated as he had no right to continue to hold the post, and his services were liable to be terminated in terms of the appointment letter, by which he was appointed on a Class IV post. 7. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly relied on the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691. However, we are conscious of the fact that the authority concerned is liable to pay one month’s salary in lieu of one month’s notice (if not paid). 8. As far as the termination order relating to writ petitioner/appellant Govind Lal Arya is concerned, the impugned order dated 12.9.1996 (copy annexure 14 to the said writ petition) clearly shows that the appointment letter of writ petitioner/appellant Govind Lal Arya was placed in abeyance, in compliance of order dated 23.1.1996, passed by District Magistrate/Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Alomora (copy annexure 13 to the writ petition filed by Govind Lal Arya), and order dated 30.8.1994 passed by Chief Development Officer, Almora. The order dated 30.8.1994 is the appointment letter of Govind Lal Arya on a Class IV post in the pay-scale of 750-940, considering services rendered by him on daily wages with the department. The appointment letter indicates that the appellant was liable to be terminated on one month’s notice or in lieu of one month’s salary. However his case is different to that of Shanker Lal for the reason that Govind Lal Arya was working on daily wages, before his appointment on a Class IV post, and it is further found that vide order dated 6.4.2000, during the pendency of the writ petition filed by him, his services have been confirmed. It appears that learned Single Judge has not taken note of said fact. 5 9. Therefore, for the reasons, as discussed above, the special appeal no. 168 of 2008, filed by Govind Lal Arya, is allowed, and the impugned order dated 12.2.2008, so far as it relates to dismissal of writ petition no. 5182 (S/S) of 2001 (Old No.30914 of 1996), is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed, and the abeyance of appointment letter, so far as it relates to Govind Lal Arya stands quashed. As far as appeal no. 43 of 2008, filed by Shanker Lal is concerned, same is dismissed with the observation that said writ petitioner/appellant shall be paid one month’s salary in lieu of one month’s notice with 6 per cent interest per annum thereon from the date of termination of his service till the amount is paid (if not already paid) by State of Uttarakhand, leaving it open for State of Uttarakhand to recover from the State of Uttar Pradesh, if permissible under the law. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 23.12.2010. Kuldeep