Shri Maheshwari Senior Higher Secondary School and Anr. Vs. Bhikha Ram Sharma & ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3645 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.21583 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.21583 of 1995)
Petitioner: Shri Maheshwari Senior Higher Secondary School and Anr.
Respondent: Bhikha Ram Sharma & ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3645 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.21583 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.21583 of 1995)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 12, 1996
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Post
Post – Abolition of – Service of the respondent, an ad hoc employee, was terminated due to abolition of post – Held that on abolition of the post, the existing holder of the post ceases to continue from the date of abolition of the post and that since the termination of the service of the respondent is only due to abolition of the post, the question of conducting the enquiry under Rules as directed by the High Court does not arise – Appeal allowed.
Post
Post – Abolition of – Service of the respondent, an ad hoc employee, was terminated due to abolition of post – Held that on abolition of the post, the existing holder of the post ceases to continue from the date of abolition of the post and that since the termination of the service of the respondent is only due to abolition of the post, the question of conducting the enquiry under Rules as directed by the High Court does not arise – Appeal allowed.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Rajasthan High Court made in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.492/95. The short question is: whether the respondent can be permitted to continue in a post that stands abolished? It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed as Steno-Typist on ad hoc basis w.e.f. July 15, 1992. While he was continuing, the Management had passed a Resolution on May 21, 1994 stating that there was no necessity to continue the ad hoc post of Steno-typist. Consequently, the post stood abolished. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on May 31, 1994 terminating the service. When the appellants had proceeded to the Tribunal and then to the High Court, the High Court came to the conclusion that termination is not according to Rules and directed to conduct an enquiry according to Rules and to take a decision. The approach adopted by the High Court is wholly erroneous. It is settled law that on abolition of the post, the existing holder of the post ceases to continue from the date of abolition of the post. Since the termination of the service of the respondent is only due to abolition of the post, the question of conducting the enquiry under Rules does not arise.
3. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Rajasthan High Court made in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.492/95. The short question is: whether the respondent can be permitted to continue in a post that stands abolished? It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed as Steno-Typist on ad hoc basis w.e.f. July 15, 1992. While he was continuing, the Management had passed a Resolution on May 21, 1994 stating that there was no necessity to continue the ad hoc post of Steno-typist. Consequently, the post stood abolished. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on May 31, 1994 terminating the service. When the appellants had proceeded to the Tribunal and then to the High Court, the High Court came to the conclusion that termination is not according to Rules and directed to conduct an enquiry according to Rules and to take a decision. The approach adopted by the High Court is wholly erroneous. It is settled law that on abolition of the post, the existing holder of the post ceases to continue from the date of abolition of the post. Since the termination of the service of the respondent is only due to abolition of the post, the question of conducting the enquiry under Rules does not arise.
3. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
