JASHWANTKUMAR J DESAI Vs. SABARKANTHA DISTRICT PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .These two matters have been heard together because the points involved are similar.

(2.) In Special Civil Application No. 708 of 1989, the petitioner, who was working as a work-charge clerk from time to time on periodic appointments in the office of the respondent No. 2 - Executive Engineer, District Panchayat, Sabarkantha, seeks a direction on the respondents to absorb him in service with full back wages by treating him in continuous service from the date of his initial appointment i.e., from 4-6-1984. According to him, between June, 1984 to November 1985, under the periodic orders of appointment for 29 days, he had completed service of more than 19 months. Thereafter, by an order dated 7-10-1985, his services were put at the disposal of the Deputy Executive Engineer, Roads and Building Sub Division, Idar for appointment on 29 days basis. He was relieved from duty from the scarcity works as per the order dated 30th July, 1988, and was not allowed to resume his duty as work-charge clerk thereafter. According to the petitioner, the order of termination of his service was arbitrary, and that he was entitled to be continued in service as a regular employee;

(3.) The respondents-authorities, in their affidavit-in-reply, have pointed out that there were 31 posts on the temporary establishment of the Panchayat Divisions and the projects were undertaken at the instance of the Government on work-charge basis. The expenditure incurred by the Panchayat beyond 2% of the estimated costs of the work was to be met from the local funds of the Panchayat. The petitioner was appointed as a work-charge clerk at a time when the District Panchayat had sufficient work for the maintenance of the roads and buildings. However, as per the order dated 4-10-1988 of the State Government, the roads admeasuring 501.03 Kms. were transferred to the State Government and the work of Division No. I of Sabarkantha District Panchayat had been substantially reduced, as a result of which, about 20 regular work-charge clerks became surplus, and were to be transferred to some other Roads and Building Division of the State Government. It is stated that the petitioner had been relieved as per the terms and conditions of his appointment, because when he was appointed on scarcity works, his appointment was made subject to the condition that it was liable to be terminated at the end of the scarcity works. It is stated that as and when new projects come up, work would be offered to such persons according to their seniority. It is contended that the petitioner was the junior most work-charge clerk employee, and that he could not have any grievance against the termination of his service, which was as per the terms and conditions of his appointment. It is stated that the termination of the petitioner's service was as per the circular and the resolutions issued from time to time and because he was only a work-charge employee appointed for a temporary period.