Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 506 (GUJ)

Kishor Maganbhai Sarvaiya v. Union of India

2018-02-15

A.Y.KOGJE, M.R.SHAH

body2018
JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. By way of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the respective petitioners have prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction to quash and set aside the impugned orders/communications dated 5/12/2017, by which the services of the respective petitioners as outsiders workers on the post of MTS/Postman have been discontinued. 2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that, as such, the respective petitioners have worked for more than 20 years and therefore, their services could not have been and/or ought not to have been discontinued in such a manner abruptly that too without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. 3. Mr. Kshitij Amin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the common respondent – Union of India is not in a position to dispute the above that the respective petitioners have worked for more than 20 years. He is also not in a position and is not disputing that the impugned orders have been passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. 4. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, more particularly when the impugned orders are in breach of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioners before discontinuing the services of the petitioners and when it is reported that the respective petitioners were working since last more than 20 years. 5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and on the aforesaid ground alone, all these Special Civil Applications succeed. The impugned orders passed by the respondent department dated 5/12/2017 discontinuing the services of the petitioners is hereby quashed and set aside, as the same are found to be in breach of principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioners before passing the same. However, it will be open for the concerned respondent to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and on merits, however, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.