MAHESH CHANDRA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ABOVE mentioned three writ petitions arc based on almost similar facts and involved similar questions of law, are, therefore, decided by one order.

(2.) ALL the three petitioners were appointed on fixed salary as L.D.C. in office or respondent No. 2, Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board (herein -after referred to as 'the Board'), Jaipur on temporary basis. The services of petitioners were terminated in writ petitions No. 3374/88 and No. 1151/88 by order dated April 1, 1988 (Annexurcs -14 and 17 respectively) and of petitioner in petition No. 3615/88 by order dated April 4,1988 (Anncxure -4). They were paid particular amount to cover one month's notice period and other payments as required Under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the I.D. Act').

(3.) IT is pointed out that a circular was issued on November 6, 1987 by Executive Director under the instructions of Administrator of the Board, staling therein that since the petitioners were appointed on adhoc basis and work of L.D.C. is taken from them and under Rajasthan Service Rules, typing test is necessary, therefore, the petitioner in writ petition No. 3374/88 was directed to appear for typing test on December 31,1987 (Annexure -9). However, the above circular was cancelled till further decision is taken in the matter vide office order dated December 14,1987 (Annexure -10). It is submitted that as mentioned in Para 17 of the petition No. 3374/88 6 other persons whose names arc mentioned therein were similarly appointed in the year 1980 to 1984 on temporary adhoc basis against sanctioned posts of L.D.C, were given opportunity to take typing test, but failed in tests held on April 16,1986 and August 30, 1986, but still their services were not terminated and are still continuing, while the petitioners services have been dispensed with without allowing them chance to appear in typing test in which they are quite proficient. Some persons were even given third opportunity to take typing test on July 31, 1980 with a view to regularise their services even though they were on same looting like petitioners. It is further contended that the services of the petitioners were infact terminated because vide representations dated February 24,1988 and March 15, 1988 (Annexures -11 and 12 respectively), a demand for giving 'equal pay for equal work' and regularisation of service was made. It is further contended that vide order dated March 29, 1988 (Annexure - 13) a direction was given by Board to retrench all such persons who have served for less than 180 days, but as regards the persons who had served for more than 2 years, a direction was given to adjust them in Sub -Divisions/Divisions where the vacancies are existing. However, instead of following the above direction, an illegal order dated April 1, 1988 (Anncxure -14) was issued by the Administrator of the Board, terminated the services of the petitioners on the ground that their services were no more required. In order Annexure -14, which was, served on petitioner in writ petition No. 3374/88 salary for the month of March, 1988, Rs. 17/ - for one day of April, salary of one month for notice period and Rs. 500/ - as compensation (total Rs. 1517/ -) was also sent by cheque along with the above order. It is contended by learned Counsel that since the month of April had started one day's salary could not have been sent and it was necessary to have sent full salary for the month of April. Salary of one month for the period of notice of one month and also compensation as required Under Section 25F of the I.D. Act should have been sent. In writ petition No. 1151/88 vide Annexure -17 dated April 1, 1988 same amount was sent to the petitioner in the above mentioned writ petition. In writ petition No. 3615/88 vide Anncxure -4 dated April 4, 1988, salary for the month of March. 1988,4 days payment amounting to Rs. 68/ -, Rs. 500/ - for the period of one month notice and Rs. 250/ - as compensation (total Rs. 1318/ -) was sent by cheque along with the above mentioned order. It is submitted that provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act were hot followed in case of either of the petitioners. It is also submitted that one Chandra Prakash Baradia was appointed on work charge basis on October 1, 1986 has been retailed in service violating principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and also provisions of Section 25G of the I.D. Act by not observing the principles of last come first go'. Similarly one Data Ram was appointed on the post of L.D.C. vide order dated May 29, 1988 (Annex -15) One Kumari Pushpa Sharma was appointed as L.D.C. vide order dated August 23.1988 (Annexure - 17). One Laxmi -Kant Goswami has been appointed on deputation from Agriculture Marketing Department idc order dated May 20, 1988 (Anncxurc -16). It is further pointed out that 12 L.D.Cs. from other departments are working on deputation in the Board. It is contended that in all these appointments and by taking as many as more than 12 persons on deputation on the posts of L.D.C. the principles of 'natural justice and Articles 14 and 16 have been grossly violated/The respondent No. 2 cannot lake persons on deputation from other departments on the clear vacancies and at the same time terminate the services of the petitioners on the ground that their services were no more required and that there were no vacancies. It is also submitted that the appointment of Shri D.Kumar as Administrator is illegal and not in accordance with law as the notification was not published in the Gazette as required by the relevant provisions of the Act/Rules arid the circular dated February 10, 1988 (Annexure -18) issued by Mr.D.Kumar himself regarding assuming his charge cannot be substituted to the notification. It is also contended that in the meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Administrator of the Board on March 21. 1988, it was decided that services of all employees who have been appointed on temporary basis against -sanctioned posts, have not been approved by the selection committee as envisaged in Rule 23 of the Bylaws should be forthwith terminated after giving them notice, pay and retrenchment compensation. It is, therefore, contended that even in terms of the above resolution, petitioners were required to be placed before selection committee and if the Section committee did not approve the selection of the petitioners, then alone, their services could have been terminated after complying with the conditions mentioned therein. It is however submitted that no selection committee was constituted to give opportunity to the petitioncrrs to appear before it for the purpose of approval/selection. Whereas Shri Babulal Yadav, Tilak Singh, Yashwant Kumar Verma and Pushuparti Nath Sharma who were similarly appointed on adhoc basis from year 1980 to 1984 arc allowed to continued in spite of their repeatedly failing in the typing test and even though not approved by selection committee.