IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4945 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.11.2011 Anil Kumar son of Shri Ram Gopal, resident of Village and Post Office Rania, District Sirsa (Haryana) ...Petitioner versus Haryana Warehousing Corporation through its Managing Director Shop-cum-Office No.8, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, and Mr. Saroj Malakar, Advocate, for Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has a grievance that his appointment made on 20.08.1987 on a regular scale of 525-1050 plus usual allowances for a post as Manager Grade-III came to be terminated in about a month's time when on 15.09.1987, an office order was passed stating that he along with 4 others were terminated with immediate effect as they were no longer required by the Corporation. Civil Writ Petition No.4945 of 1988 (O&M) - 2 - 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order of termination referred to Regulation 10(i) of the Staff Regulation of the Corporation as a justification for termination. The argument is that Regulation 10(i) deals with temporary employes but the order of appointment itself does not read as though that it was temporary. The further contention is that in the same month, a fresh advertisement had been issued for the very same post of Manager Grade-III and, therefore, it was not as if the posts were required to be abolished or there was no work. The respondents in their reply have admitted the fact that there was such an advertisement. 3. The order of appointment that had been originally issued on 20.08.1987 contains the terms and conditions that includes that the appointee shall be in probation for two years from the date of his appointed date which could be extended as per rules of the Corporation. Although there is no reference to the appointment as temporary, in the manner that the order of appointment was to be construed, the effect of a person on probation could only mean that the appointee had not been made permanent. The order of termination itself could not be said to have cast any stigma. The learned counsel states that yet another person by name Ajit Singh, who had also been terminated on the same day was however retained and he is continuing in service. I have not the details as to how he came to be retained despite the order of termination or whether he came through any other recruitment process that had been initiated Civil Writ Petition No.4945 of 1988 (O&M) - 3 - subsequent to the termination. 4. The case has been admitted on 21.11.1988. The petitioner had no service beyond a month and I cannot find a reason for reinstatement at this length of time. 5. There is no representation for the respondents for me even to elicit the justification for such an order of termination within a period of a month on a specious ground that the work was no longer available. It is an admitted fact that they put through an advertisement for the recruitment to the very same post in the very same month. For the unreasonableness of the conduct of the respondent, I would think the petitioner shall be compensated, which I will provide as Rs.50,000/-. The cost has a bearing to the initial scale of pay which was offered to him and expectation that he could have had for his own continuation in service in the Corporation. 6. The writ petition is disposed of allowing to the petitioner Rs.50,000/- as compensation against the respondents. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 30.11.2011 sanjeev