GUWAHATI, India, Feb. 23 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Jan. 22:
1. Heard Mr. P. D. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the GMC and GDD.
2] By filing the instant writ petition the petitioner is assailing the impugned order dated 01.12.2014 issued by the respondent No. 4 , whereby the petitioner was released from service of the respondent No. 3.
3] The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as an Administrative Officer (Business Administration) in the Gauhati Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "GMC") through a regular selection process with the approval of the Government of Assam initially for a period of 6 (six) months, and thereafter the same was extended till the finalization and acceptance of the staffing pattern of the GMC and the government. The Government of Assam with the concurrence of the Finance Department and the Guwahati Development Department (hereinafter referred to as the "GDD"), had accepted the staffing pattern of the GMC, and the State Cabinet had approved the regularization of the petitioner in the post, approving him the time scale of pay till his retirement. While the matter rested there, the respondent No. 4, by order dated 01.12.2014 suddenly released the petitioner from service of the Corporation stating the same to be in the interest of the public service. Aggrieved by the aforesaid release order, the present writ petition has been filed.
4] Mr. P. D. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the aforesaid release is totally bad in law as the same is done without issuing any notice or giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. He further submits that the Government of Assam having already accepted the staffing pattern and the State Cabinet having approved the regularization of the petitioner the service of the petitioner ought to have been regularized in the said post of Administrative Officer (Business Administration). However, instead the respondents have resorted to releasing the petitioner for vested interest. He further submits that along with the petitioner there has been another officer who has been working as a Public Grievance Officer, in respect of which the Government of Assam and the GDD had accepted the staffing pattern of the GMC and had approved the regularization of that person. Though the State respondent had released the petitioner; however, the same person is still continuing.
5] Per contra, Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the GMC and GDD, submits that the staffing pattern is not yet finalized and the service of the petitioner, having been in the nature of a contractual arrangement, was terminated in terms of the contractual appointment by giving the one month notice. 6] Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner was engaged as Administrative Officer (Business Administration) by the Commissioner, GMC, by letter dated 28.02.2011 on a purely contractual basis for a fixed period of time with the condition that the contract can be terminated at any time from either side with one month's notice, which was also later on extended until further orders.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=lG6h6ilt3H1fOBr4DLdM9f7Dl49dYhmXAQ%2Bnp8TU4VbnVPCrq9RCO55pfpf2G%2FVr&caseno=WP(C)/6405/2014&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010187812014&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
