Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 599 (MP)

Kiran Chouhan v. State of M. P.

2015-05-21

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2015
ORDER 1. By these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners Kiran and Arka have challenged their oral termination orders. The petitions are being dealt together and this common order shall govern both the cases. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed as Safai Karmcharies on 3.1.2013 and 12.7.2013 respectively and they had joind duties thereafter, however after having worked for one year their services were terminated orally, stating that their services were no longer required and Counsel urged that such a termination of the petitioners is illegal, inoperative. Counsel prayed that the petitioners may be allowed to continue to work and their oral termination be quashed. 3. Counsel for the petitioners has relied on Hari Narayan Sakya v. State of M.P. and others [ 2000(3) MPLJ 351 ], to state that this Court had under similar circumstances held that the termination was illegal since it was against the rules and Government instructions and proper opportunities of hearing were not granted to the petitioners and hence the Court had ordered their reinstatement by placing reliance on AIR 1990 SC 1402 , AIR 1991 SC 309 and AIR 1998 SC 3261 . Counsel prayed that the same benefit be given to the present petitioners also. 4. Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the submissions of Counsel for the petitioners and filed a reply to state that the petitioners were temporary employees and the correct factual possession is not being placed before the Court that the petitioners were contingency paid Safai Karmchari and daily wagers and they could not have any right to appointment and regularization and in the present cases entire contract work was given on contract and it would be for the contractor to decide as to who would be the employees. Counsel submitted that the petitioners were not the Government employees and hence daily wagers were removed on services. Counsel submitted that the State Government is not required regularize the services of the petitioners. Counsel prayed that the petitions are being without merit and the same be dismissed as such. 5. Needless to say this Court is not making any observations on merit of the case, if the petitioners move appropriate representations they shall be considered by the respondents authority as expeditiously as possible by considering the case of Hari Narayan (supra). Counsel prayed that the petitions are being without merit and the same be dismissed as such. 5. Needless to say this Court is not making any observations on merit of the case, if the petitioners move appropriate representations they shall be considered by the respondents authority as expeditiously as possible by considering the case of Hari Narayan (supra). It is directed that the respondents authority shall decide the representation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order and the competent authority pass an order in writing granting reasons. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the petitions are allowed to the extent herein above indicated. 7. A copy of this order be retained in Writ Petition No.7880/2014.