High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rakesh Babu v. M.D., U.P. Bhumi Vikas Bank & Another - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 96 of 2004  RD-AH 17554 (11 October 2006)
Special Appeal No.96 of 2004
Rakesh Babu .....Appellant
The Managing Director, U.P. Bhumi Vikas Bank, Head Office Lohia Bhawan, Lucknow & another .....Respondents
Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
We have heard Sri B.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the judgment dated 23.8.2003 of the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing appellant's Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36304 of 2003.
It is contended that the petitioner-appellant was appointed as Assistant Accounts Clerk on daily wage basis in the Office of the U.P. Bhumi Vikas Bank in the year 1978 and had continued till the year 1981. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that he was terminated abruptly though his juniors were retained and have been regularised subsequently. He referred to Annexure 3 to the affidavit filed along with stay application in this appeal, which is in respect to one Subhash, and contended that he being engaged for the first time in 1981 was retained and continued and thus, the appellant is also entitled for the same treatment.
However, we do not find any force in the submission. It appears that earlier the petitioner-appellant filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8052 of 2002 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 9.4.2003 directing the petitioner-appellant to make representation before the authorities concerned, who is required to decide the same. Pursuant thereto the appellant made representations on 4.3.2002 and 18.3.2002 which have been decided by the respondent vide order dated 27.6.2003, a copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application to the special appeal. A perusal thereof shows that on 13.4.1978 the petitioner-appellant was engaged on daily wage basis with clear stipulation that his engagement was only for a period of three months and purely on daily wage basis and on expiry of three months his services shall automatically cease. The petitioner-appellant ''s services were terminated by efflux of time and it appears that the same was not extended thereafter. There is nothing on record to show that after expiry of the aforesaid period the petitioner-appellant was further engaged or appointed in service. The documents filed by the petitioner-appellant in respect to one Sri Subhash showing that he was engaged from time to time is not relevant for the reason that so far as the petitioner-appellant is concerned he was engaged only for a period of three months and after the expiry of the aforesaid period, his service came to an end. Sri Subhash, it appears, was also terminated in 1986 but he filed a writ petition and pursuant to interim order passed therein, he has been allowed to continue. However, the petitioner was admittedly engaged for a period of three months only in the year 1978 and there is nothing on record to show that the said engagement was extended thereafter. The Managing Director, U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank in his order dated 27.6.2003, impugned in the writ petition, has stated that after expiry of three months period the service of the petitioner ceased automatically and he was also paid wages for the period he had worked. The petitioner-appellant has failed to place any material on record to show that the aforesaid finding recorded by the Managing Director of the Bank in respect of petitioner is incorrect or perverse. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner-appellant is similarly placed with Sri Subhash or otherwise is entitled for any relief.
It is settled exposition of law that an appointment made for a fixed period automatically came to an end on expiry of the said period and the incumbent need not be terminated after expiry of the period since cessation of service is by operation of law i.e. in accordance with the terms of appointment. In Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. vs. Pushpa Srivastava (Smt.), 1992 (4) SCC 33 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the appointment, which is made for a fixed tenure comes to an end on the expiry of the period of appointment provided in the letter of appointment and the incumbent need not be terminated as the termination of employment comes automatically by efflux of time. In this case also, admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner was for a fixed tenure and thus the contention of the petitioner-appellant that he has wrongly been terminated is thoroughly mis-conceived.
We, therefore, do not find any fault in the judgment/order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner-appellant.
The appeal, being without merit, is hereby dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.