RAFIQ AHMED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT -

(2.) IN the early eighties the government or Rajasthan introduced various programmes and allied schemes for poverty elimination, employment generation etc. It brought into existence bodies known as District Rural Development Agencies (hereinafter referred to as 'DRDAs') registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. The main object of these agencies was to plan and administer the area development programme aiming at integrated Rural Development. IN the year 1992. these DRDAs were concerned with the following schemes: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_221_SUPREME9_1999Html1.htm</FRM> The main object of the Agencies was to implement such Schemes and to identify beneficiaries including small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers and other persons eligible for assistance under these Schemes. The agencies also coordinated execution of these plans for the benefit of the identified participants through the existing agencies engaged in this direction in the field whether private, public or co-operative. Each District Rural Development Agency was an independent entity with a District Collector as ex-officio Chairman and a Project Director as the Chief Executive Officer.

(3.) SEVERAL petitions were filed before the High court of Rajasthan challenging such termination of the employees. The principal grounds of challenge were that the petitioners having been appointed regularly against different posts, their services could not have been so terminated unceremoniously. that the petitioners though outwardly appointed in several societies were in fact the employees of the State government inasmuch as their salaries were being paid from the funds made available by the State government and even if the need for such employment had come to an end with the societies. there were several vacancies available with the State government against which the petitioners could have been accommodated and regularised; that the DRDA was 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 and yet the provisions of Section 25-F were not complied with and so the termination was bad: and that the rule of last-come-first-go was not followed.