1.DB Civil Special Appeal No. 858/1999 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2402/1987 The King Edward VII Memorial Society Vs Anil Kumar Goyal & ors 2.DB Civil Special Appeal No. 860/1999 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2419/1987 The King Edward VII Memorial Society Vs Renu Goyal 12.2.2009 Hon'ble Mr Justice Ashok Parihar Hon'ble Mr Justice GS Sarraf Mr Mukesh Agrawal – for appellant Mr RC Joshi - for the respondents BY THE COURT: Since, on similar set of facts, common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge, both the appeals have been heard together and are decided by this common order. Respondent – Anil Kumar Goyal, been handicapped, was appointed on the post of Manager after due selection by a selection committee vide order dated 20.5.1986. The other respondent – Renu Goyal, wife of respondent-Anil Kumar Goyal, was also appointed as House-keeper after due selection by the selection committee vide order dated 20.5.1986. Initially, the appointment was made on probation for three months, however, not further extension letters for period of probation have been issued so far. It appears that considering satisfactory work of Anil Kumar Goyal his salary was increased subsequently from Rs.1000/- to Rs.1250/- per month. As it transpires and has come on record that both the respondents made serious complaints against the then Collector who was also the President of the appellant society, to the Divisional Commissioner. Immediately after such complaints, services of both the respondents were terminated by a simple order dated 9.9.1987 observing therein that the services were no more required. Though, some vague allegations of irregularities have been made in reply filed on behalf of the appellant before the learned Single Judge, however, admittedly, neither any preliminary enquiry was ever made nor any show cause notice was issued to both the respondents. Learned Single Judge, while setting aside the termination orders dated 9.9.1987 vide order dated 9.7.1999 also observed that apart from violation of principles of natural justice the termination stinks of malafides. We find no error or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge so far holding the termination as illegal and unjustified. The termination was made on 9.9.1987. The writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 9.7.1999. Now more than 20 years have lapsed since the date of termination. Looking to the nature and duration of employment, we find no justification in allowing any back wages to both the respondents employees. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. We now direct the appellant to reinstate both the respondents employees on their respective posts with immediate effect on the same terms and conditions when they were employed at the time termination. Both the respondents shall not be entitled for any benefits prior to the passing of this order, however, now, shall be paid salary on the basis of minimum wages fixed by the State Government as on today for the post of Manager/Supervisor and House-keeper to both the respondents respectively. The appellant shall be further free to pass any fresh orders if the services are not required after following due process of law. (GS Sarraf) J. (Ashok Parihar) J. bnsharma