THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NOS.6914 AND 20669 OF 2005 COMMON ORDER (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Chandraiah) Heard both the counsel. 2. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is common, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The respondents in W.P.No.6914 of 2005 and the petitioner in WP.No.20669 of 2005 were appointed as Quality Control Assistants on ad hoc basis in the India Government Mint, Hyderabad in the years 2003 and 1997 respectively. By order dated 1.6.2004, they were terminated from service. Aggrieved by the said orders of termination, they filed O.A.Nos.13151/2004 and 6392 of 2004 respectively on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad for setting aside the order of termination and for directing the respondents – Union of India to regularize their services. 4. By order dated 15.12.2004 in O.A.No.13151/2004 the Tribunal set aside the order of termination and gave liberty to the Union of India to take appropriate action in terms of condition no.1 of appointment letter dated 6.6.2003 i.e., after giving one month notice to the applicants. 5. In O.A.No.639/2004 the Tribunal by order dated 3.3.2005 did not interfere with the order of termination, but ordered the Union of India to give one month’s pay to the application within three months from the date of the order, instead of one month’s notice. 6. Now aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2004 in O.A.No.13151/2004, the Union of India filed W.P.No.6914 of 2005 and the applicant in O.A.No.639/2004 filed W.P.No.20669 of 2005, seeking regularization of his service. 7. From the material available on record, it could be seen that there is no dispute that the applicants before the Tribunal in both the O.As., were appointed as Quality Control Assistants on ad hoc basis and the said post was abolished by the Union of India vide order dated 6.7.2004 and, therefore, though the petitioners served for considerable length of time, as their appointment is purely on ad hoc basis, their services were terminated. 8. The condition no.1 of the terms of appointment reads as follows: “The post is purely ad hoc and he may be considered for appointment on temporary capacity subject to satisfactory performance and is likely to be terminated at any time without notice and without assigning any reasons whatsoever within the first three months of his appointment and thereafter with one month’s notice on either side” 9. The above condition no.1 stipulates that in case the Union of India intends to terminate the service of the petitioners after a period of three months of his appointment, he shall be given one month’s notice before such termination. 10. In the present case, before terminating the services of the petitioners, who were appointed on ad hoc basis, as no notice as contemplated under condition no.1 of the appointment order, was issued, the Tribunal in O.A.No.1315/2004 set aside the order of termination and gave liberty to the Union of India to take appropriate steps in terms of condition no.1, i.e., to issue termination orders after issuing one month’s notice. Similarly in O.A.No.639/2004, instead of directing to issue one month’s notice, the Tribunal directed to pay one month’s salary, which, as stated in the counter affidavit, the Union of India sent to the applicant’s address, and the same was returned as the applicant refused to receive the same. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in both the writ petitions. 12. Further, from the material on record and on enquiry by this court, it could be seen that when the Tribunal declined to grant interim order in O.A.No.639/2004 dated 10.6.2004, the petitioner in W.P.No.20669/2005, earlier filed W.P.No.15113 of 2004 challenging his termination order Vide Diary Order No.9 dated 2.6.2004 on the ground that it is contradiction to the terms under memo no.1-240/97/1Admn/716 dated 17.5.1997. By order dated 26.8.2004, this court dismissed the writ petition. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in both the writ petitions and they are dismissed. No costs. ------------------------------ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ------------------------------- - G.CHANDRAIAH,J DATE: 29.10.2010 AVS