Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
File Nos. 11‑11‑24‑341, decided on 31st January, 1955.
S. 240 (3)‑Retrenchment of unnecessary staff on basis of bad record‑Procedure prescribed by section must be followed‑Civil Service Rules, (Punjab) Vol. 1 Part 1, Rule 14.13.
11 temporary posts of Junior Clerks were abolished as a result of financial stringency and the Deputy Commissioner of the District proceeded to make a selection of the staff to be retrenched from the seniority list and directed the removal of the four petitioners either on the strength of their bad record or that they did not fulfil the minimum qualifications laid down for recuritment to the District Office establishment.
Held that as these four employees were not the junior- most in the seniority list, and their retrenchment was admittedly based on their bad service record the proper procedure was to carry out the provisions of the Act and the relevant Civil Service Rules.
Muhammad Sadiq, for Petitioner.
‑This order will dispose of the four connected revision petitions filed by Chiragh Hussain, Navid Ullah, Shaukat Ali and Yusaf Beg against orders passed by the Commissioner, Multan Division, on 13th Octo ber 1953, refusing to revise the orders of Deputy Commis sioner, Montgomery passed on 27th May 1953.
The facts briefly are that 11 temporary posts of Junior Clerks were abolished as a result of financial stringency and the Deputy Commissioner, Montgomery, proceeded to make a selection of the staff to be retrenched from the seniority list and directed the removal of the four petitioners either on the strength of their bad record or that they did not fulfil the minimum qualifications laid down for recruitment to the District Office establishment. On appeal, the learned Com missioner, as already mentioned, has upheld the order of removal passed by the Deputy Commissioner though he regularised it by giving the petitioners one month's notice of discharge.
The main argument that has been advanced before me is that in cage Government intend to retrench unnecessary staff, they are not thereby authorised to dispense with the requirements laid down for terminating the services of those officers who have a bad record ; and the procedure which is laid down in subsection (3) of section 240 of the Constitu tion Act and rule 14,13 of the Civil Service Rules (Punjab), Volume I, Part I, has to be followed. If any departure is made from this procedure, it is contrary to the basic principles of the Constitution and is ultra vires. Now, these four employees are not the junior‑most in the seniority list furnished by the Deputy Commissioner, and their retrench ment is admittedly based on their bad service record. Thus the proper procedure which the Deputy Commissioner should have followed, was to carry out the provisions of the Act and. the Civil Service Rules mentioned above, and as he did not; do so, I would accept these four revision petitions. It is of course open to the Deputy Commissioner to retrench the junior‑most employees or in case he intends to pick and choose and base retrenchment on the strength of service records, he must follow the procedure laid down for the termination of the service of Government employees as mentioned above.
A. H. Petitions accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer