USHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitioners working as Pharmacist/clerks/Computer Operators under the "Mukhya Mantri BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh (MM JRK for short) have approached this Court by way of present writ petitions seeking writ of mandamus against the respondents to continue their services as such till the scheme of BPL MM JRK is continuing and the term of their contract of service for fixed period may be directed to be extended and the termination order, if any, may be quashed and the petitioners have also claimed that the respondents may be directed to consider the petitioners for regularization in service.

(2.) THE petitioners were appointed in the aforesaid position on a fixed monthly honorarium of Rs. 4500/- for the Computer operators and Pharmacist and Rs. 3600/- for clerks by the Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society and their initial appointment for a period of one year in SBCWP No. 6116/2010 - Usha and Ors. vs. State Annex. 3 is dated 2.6.2009.

(3.) THE learned counsels for the respondents also drew the attention of the Court towards the Background Note on the aforesaid BPL MM JRK scheme prepared by Mr. J.P. Meena, the Project Director of the said Scheme on 23.7.2010 and submitted that the Central Government was to made available 70% of the fund required for the said Scheme which was required expenditure for the period 2010-2011 to the tune of Rs. 65 crores and remaining 30% was to be provided by the State Government and thus out of share of the Central Government of Rs. 45.50 crores, the Central Government has made available only Rs. 20 crores vide its letter dtd. 5.5.2010 of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. New Delhi addressed to Mission Director, NRHM and the Special Secretary, Government of Rajasthan Jaipur that "this is a State initiative and 30:70 cost sharing basis as proposed by the State is not agreed to GOI support is limited to Rs. 20 cr. only." THEy therefore, submitted that on account of limited resources of the State Government and less than expected resources made available by the Central Government, the State Government had no option but to abolish 975 posts as aforesaid and restrict the posts to 886 only for various categories of contracted employees for the said Scheme in the State and therefore, when no such posts were available, there was no question of extending the period of contract of service of the present petitioners. THEy prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.