RATAN LAL Vs. RAJ HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Ratan Lal Sharma S/o Sh. Mali Ram Sharma is hereby appointed as Personal Assistant to Chairman in the pay scale of Rs. 620 - 1100 with other usual allowances with effect from 4th August, '82, the date from which he has taken over as P.A. to Chairman. He will also be entitled to other facilities as admissible. This bears the approval of Chairman. Sd/ -Sher NathSecretary.Copy for information and necessary action to the following:1. PS to Chairman, RHB, Jaipur,

(2.) P .A. to H.C. Secretary, DAO, Dy. HC (HO), Dy. HC (J/C) Dy. HC (Kota Circle), Jodhpur Circle,

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Shri S.C. Agrawal on the aforesaid facts submitted that it is regrettable that a statutory body like Rajasthan Housing Board is playing with the career of its employee who has always been considered to be a man of high integrity, having dedicated devotion to duty and is efficient in his work and whose services had been appreciated from time to time, in as much as the Board in its meeting dated October 22, 1986 after considering his various qualities unanimously resolved to regularise his services. Further submission of the learned Counsel is that under the garb of the transfer orders issued from time to time he is being demoted to the lower posts. To illustrate he submit that earlier he was deputed to work as Counter Supervisor and now in the office of a Deputy Commissioner where no post equivalent to the post of Personal Assistant to Chairman exists. It is submitted that once the order appointing him on contract basis followed by order of termination of his service was unconditionally withdrawn and then the Board resolved to regularise his services on the post of Personal Assistant to Chairman he ought to have been given the pay scale of the post of L.A.O., A.H.O., Record Officer, A.A.O. or Public Relation Officer and is liable to be transferred on any of these posts. It is submitted that the non -petitioner is not granting any increment to the petitioner who is serving efficient for five years and this action is wholly unjust, arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair. Learned Counsel submitted that since the petitioner is serving the statutory Corporation having force of law the petitioner has a statutory status and his employment has to be considered as a matter of status and not of contract. It is then submitted that the petitioner who had been continuously serving for such a long period, his services are required to be regularised. Even assuming that he does not have minimum educational qualification but that ought to have been seen at the time of initial appointment and it has no relevance at the stage of confirmation. Reliance is this connection has been placed on Bhagwatiprasad v. Delhi State Min.Dev. Corp. : (1990)ILLJ320SC . It is further submitted that considering for a moment that it was because of the humanatarian consideration that the order of termination was withdrawn yet when the petitioner has been continued in service even if on contractual service for five years, sword of damocles cannot be kept hanging over his neck for all times. It is wholly unwarranted in a welfare State.