High Court · 2025

10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the attachment of the petitioner to a particular vehicle as had been done by means of the attachment order dated 24.07.2012 was ended vide the order impugned dated 26.10.2012 the natural corollary to it was that the petitioner would have continued to work on contract basis as a driver but his services were orally dispensed with.

11. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the instant petition and during pendency of the petition itself an order dated 17.11.2016, copy of which is Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit, was passed by the Project Director of the DRDA Balrampur whereby the petitioner was again attached as a driver and he continued in the said capacity right till the year 2019 and again now his services have been discontinued orally.

12. The argument is that once the appointment of the petitioner was made in April 2000 as emerges from perusal of the office noting which was made on a contract basis as a driver and the petitioner continued to work in the same capacity right till his attachment to a particular vehicle vide order dated 24.07.2012 and his attachment to the said vehicle was ended vide order impugned dated 26.10.2012 then the petitioner should have been continued in the capacity of a driver as he was earlier working but by no stretch of imagination can the ending of attachment to a particular vehicle could be treated as a oral termination of the petitioner as has been done in the instant case.

13. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit argues that there was only one vehicle in the DRDA which has been auctioned off on 26.04.2013 and as there was no requirement of working of the petitioner consequently the services of the petitioner have not been continued.

14. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the records, it emerges that the petitioner was initially appointed on a contract basis as a driver vide the office noting dated 17.04.2000 in the DRDA. The petitioner continued in the said capacity when he was attached to a particular vehicle vide order dated 24.07.2012. Shortly thereafter the attachment of the petitioner to the said vehicle was ended on 26.10.2012. Instead of the petitioner being sent back to his original post as driver it appears that his contractual services were terminated orally.

15. During pendency of the instant petition challenging the order dated 26.10.2012 the petitioner has again been appointed on contract basis as a driver on 17.11.2016 and continued in the said capacity right till the year 2019 and again his services have been orally dispensed with.

16. It is not understood that once the initial appointment of the petitioner made in April 2000 was as a vehicle driver and when subsequently by means of order dated 24.07.2012 the petitioner was only attached to a particular vehicle and that attachment was ended by the order impugned dated 26.10.2012 as to why the services of the petitioner even on contractual basis were terminated.

17. The natural corollary to the ending of an attachment, as had been made vide order dated 24.07.2012 through the order dated 26.10.2012, was that the petitioner should have been sent back to his original work or the original vehicle which he was driving more particularly when the said vehicle has been said to have been auctioned on 26.04.2013 i.e. much subsequent to the ending of the attachment dated

26.10.2012.

18. Even otherwise, the petitioner has been re-engaged as a driver in the year 2016 and has been continued in the said capacity till the year 2019 which all reflects patent non-application of mind at the time of oral termination of the petitioner while passing the order impugned dated 26.10.2012.

19. At the same time the Court may not loose sight of the fact that the petitioner had been appointed on contract basis.

20. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.4 to consider the engagement of the petitioner on contract basis in case work is available particularly considering the long working of the petitioner right since the year 2000 till the year 2012 and subsequent thereto since the year 2016 till the year 2019.

21. Let such consideration be made in accordance with law and relevant rules within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 A. Katiyar AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the attachment of the petitioner to a particular vehicle as had been done by means of the attachment order dated 24.07.2012 was ended vide the order impugned dated 26.10.2012 the natural corollary to it was that the petitioner would have continued to work on contract basis as a driver but his services were orally dispensed with.

11. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the instant petition and during pendency of the petition itself an order dated 17.11.2016, copy of which is Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit, was passed by the Project Director of the DRDA Balrampur whereby the petitioner was again attached as a driver and he continued in the said capacity right till the year 2019 and again now his services have been discontinued orally.

12. The argument is that once the appointment of the petitioner was made in April 2000 as emerges from perusal of the office noting which was made on a contract basis as a driver and the petitioner continued to work in the same capacity right till his attachment to a particular vehicle vide order dated 24.07.2012 and his attachment to the said vehicle was ended vide order impugned dated 26.10.2012 then the petitioner should have been continued in the capacity of a driver as he was earlier working but by no stretch of imagination can the ending of attachment to a particular vehicle could be treated as a oral termination of the petitioner as has been done in the instant case.

13. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit argues that there was only one vehicle in the DRDA which has been auctioned off on 26.04.2013 and as there was no requirement of working of the petitioner consequently the services of the petitioner have not been continued.

14. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the records, it emerges that the petitioner was initially appointed on a contract basis as a driver vide the office noting dated 17.04.2000 in the DRDA. The petitioner continued in the said capacity when he was attached to a particular vehicle vide order dated 24.07.2012. Shortly thereafter the attachment of the petitioner to the said vehicle was ended on 26.10.2012. Instead of the petitioner being sent back to his original post as driver it appears that his contractual services were terminated orally.

15. During pendency of the instant petition challenging the order dated 26.10.2012 the petitioner has again been appointed on contract basis as a driver on 17.11.2016 and continued in the said capacity right till the year 2019 and again his services have been orally dispensed with.

16. It is not understood that once the initial appointment of the petitioner made in April 2000 was as a vehicle driver and when subsequently by means of order dated 24.07.2012 the petitioner was only attached to a particular vehicle and that attachment was ended by the order impugned dated 26.10.2012 as to why the services of the petitioner even on contractual basis were terminated.

17. The natural corollary to the ending of an attachment, as had been made vide order dated 24.07.2012 through the order dated 26.10.2012, was that the petitioner should have been sent back to his original work or the original vehicle which he was driving more particularly when the said vehicle has been said to have been auctioned on 26.04.2013 i.e. much subsequent to the ending of the attachment dated

26.10.2012.

18. Even otherwise, the petitioner has been re-engaged as a driver in the year 2016 and has been continued in the said capacity till the year 2019 which all reflects patent non-application of mind at the time of oral termination of the petitioner while passing the order impugned dated 26.10.2012.

19. At the same time the Court may not loose sight of the fact that the petitioner had been appointed on contract basis.

20. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.4 to consider the engagement of the petitioner on contract basis in case work is available particularly considering the long working of the petitioner right since the year 2000 till the year 2012 and subsequent thereto since the year 2016 till the year 2019.

21. Let such consideration be made in accordance with law and relevant rules within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 A. Katiyar AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench