Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 433 (MP)

Rajendra Kumar Vishwakarma v. Union of India

2003-03-21

BHAWANI SINGH, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2003
JUDGMENT Kemkar, J. (Oral) -- Through this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in Original Application No. 883/1997 decided on 1.11.2002. Brief facts, necessary for deciding this petition, may be mentioned: The petitioner was appointed as "Substitute Bungalow Peon" on 20.2.1996 by Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway Jabalpur. The services of the petitioner were terminated by order dated 24.7.1997 by giving him 14 days notice. It was mentioned in the termination order that Shri Sumant Chak the then Divisional Railway Manager, Jabalpur had appointed him as Substitute Bungalow Peon and on his transfer he did not like to take him to new place of posting as such the services were being terminated as per the circular of the Central Railway (Annexure P-10). The petitioner challenged the aforesaid termination order by filing Original Application No. 883/1997 in the CAT. The respondents filed their reply and after hearing the parties the CAT dismissed the original application. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the same, preferred the present writ petition. Heard Smt. Amrit Ruprah learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also gone through the documents with the petition. In our opinion, the petition has no merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. The services, of the petitioner are governed by circular of the Chief Personnel Officer of Railways, Mumbai (Annexure P-10Clause-VII of the said circular reads as under: ''The Service of a Substitute Bungalow Peon, who has not rendered three years service, and who is not in turn for appointment to any other Class-IV Post on the basis of his selection for appointment to such post may be terminated without assigning any reason, either on the transfer of the Officer (to whom he is attached or earlier) after giving him requisite notice or paying retrenchment compensation due and admissible under the rules." Perusal of the aforesaid circular indicates that services of Substitute Bungalow Peon, who has not rendered three years service, could be terminated without assigning any reason either on the transfer of the Officer with whom, he is attached or earlier. The petitioner was appointed as Substitute Bungalow Peon on 20.2.1996 and he worked till 6.8.1997, only for one year six months and five days. The petitioner was appointed as Substitute Bungalow Peon on 20.2.1996 and he worked till 6.8.1997, only for one year six months and five days. From the very nature of appointment, it is clear that such appointments are made as per personal satisfaction of that Officer, therefore, unless such appointees complete three years service, apply for, and get selected for appointments they can not claim any right to the post. As is clear from the documents, the very entry of the petitioner in the service was as a picked up "Bungalow Peon" by the then Divisional Railway Manager Shri Sumant Chak in terms of circular (Annexure P-10) as such he has to go if he is not taken by the said Officer on transfer from Jabalpur to other place. The Central Administrative Tribunal has correctly considered the matter of the petitioner. It has rightly interpreted the circular on the basis of which the appointment was made and the order of termination was issued against the petitioner. Thus, considering the matter from all angles we do not find any merit in this petition, therefore, it fails and is dismissed in limine without order as to costs.