Shri Sgdanlal Dewaagan. aged abou-t v. Saraswati Shiksha Sansthan Madhya

Shri Sgdanlal Dewaagan. aged abou-t 28 years, Resident of SP/89, Kailash Vihar, Hasdeo Thei'mal Power Project. Darri. Korba^XMP) - Vnrsus - s 1. Sgraswati Shlksha Sansthan Madhya Pradesh, throughs its State Secretary, _..-__ Behind Ayarvedlc College. Raipui^ ( ) . f. 2. Hasdeo Shikshan Samitl, Darri, a Society registered •under MP Spcieties Rggistrikaran Adhiniyara, 1973, through 8 its Secretary, -' ^ _ .: DBfcgl;. -B^rba(MP) - 7 _.. 6

#3. Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Darrl, Through: its Vyavasthapak. Hasdeo Therroal Power Project, Dgrri, Korba.

#4. District Educa-tion Officer, Kgrba, Dist-fc. Korba^Ct'.P) .

#5. The State o£ Madhya Pradesh, i1 Throughs tbe SeCretary, Depart- laent of School Educatioa, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (MP). PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226, 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDI& FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/^RITS .iutti- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (^ WRIT PETITION No. 4243 OF 1999 PETITIONER Durga Prasad Dewangan VERSUS RESPONDENTS Saraswati Shiksha Sansthan Madhya Pradesh & Others Writ Petition under Article 226. 227 of the Constitution of India SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aghihotri. J. Present: Shri Ravish Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. OR D E R (OPEN COURT) (Passed on 27th February, 2013)

#3. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 02.08.1999 (Annexure P-7), passed by the respondent No.3, whereby,. the petitioner was terminated from service under Clause 18(3) of the Service Code. Learned counsel appearing for Ihe petitioner submits that the petitioner after having been appointed, as permanent employee, cannot be terminated without holding a proper enquiry and/or affording opportunity of hearing. Thus, the termination is bad and illegal. is further contended It that an enquiry was held at the back of the petitioner, however, no notice was given to the petitioner and also opportunity of hearing was not afforded and on the fciasis of the said enquiry, the impugned order has been passed. In the order dated 11.07.1991 .(Annexure P-2), whereunder, the petitioner was appointed as Trainee, it was mentioned that the petitioner would be entitled to Rs. 600/- as stipend with dearness allowances. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, (Annexure P-3) on pay (stipend) of Rs. 650/- plus dearness allowance. the appointment order, the petitioner was appointed on 30.06.1993 In it was stated that the service condition of the petitioner would be governed under the Service Code framed by the respondent Saraswati Shiksha Sansthan, the then, Madhya Pradesh. His stipend was also increased subsequently as Rs. 650/- by order dated

30.06.1993. There is another appointment order on 05.03.1994 (Annexure it was P-4) as Trainee on the pay scale of Rs. 750 to 1295, wherein, mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1994 was .-JE^IL- .tf^f.: ?hok !liF ^ temporary and services could have been terminated at any point of time with one month's notice or one months' salary. On 02.08.1999 (Annexure P-7), the services of the petitioner was discontinued invoking condition of - Clause 18(3) of the Service Code. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the aforesaid order clearly indicates that his appointment was permanent basis is contrary to the facts, as petitioner was appointed on several occasion only on temporary basis, initially as Trainee. Even in the termination order also, it was indicated that the petitioner was temporary Acharya. Since, the appointment of the petitioner was under provisions of Service Code, Clause 18(3) of Service Code provides that a permanent employee can be removed from service on three month's notice or three month's salary, in lieu thereof. Invoking the said provision, the petitioner was paid salary for three months' alongwith the order of termination. Thus, the petitioner that no employee can be terminated the contention of without affording him opportunity of hearing, if he had attained the status of regular employee, does not merit acceptance in the facts of the case. It is well settled that the terms of the service condition of an employee has to be decided as per terms of the appointment or under rules, whichever are applicable in the facts of the case. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 02.08.1999 (Annexure P-7) warranting interference. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No order asto cost. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge '<-•'