KHADIM ALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this special appeal, order dated 03/08/1998 of the learned Single Judge passed in SBCWP No. 6999/93 has been challenged by the appellant workman. IN the writ petition the appellant had assailed order of his termination dt. 23/11/93. Undisputably the appellant was initially appointed as Driver on-daily wages by order dt. 20/6/1987, whereafter his services were dispensed with on 03/09/1987, but again appointed by another order dt. 10/9/1987 on daily wages basis as Driver and he continued till his services were dispensed with on 04/05/88. It is the case of the appellant that under artificial breaks, again and again he was given fresh appointments and his services were dispensed with. After his services were dispensed with on 04/05/88, he was then appointed on 07/05/88 and he continued in service but without assigning any reason, his services were terminated by order dt. 07/11/88, against which he had filed writ petition No. 4654/88, which was allowed by this Court on 9/10/1991 quashing order of his termination dt. 07/11/88 & directing his reinstatement with consequential benefits, against which, Special Appeal No. 564/92 was filed but the same was dismissed on 08/09/93. It is the case of the appellant that despite the contempt petition, no order reinstating him with consequential benefits. was issued by the respondent department till the SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Ultimately he was taken in service but on daily wage Rs. 24/- inasmuch as the payment was made by deducting wages of national holidays and Sundays. However, back wages were directed by the respondent department to be paid to the appellant by order dated 23/11/1993 and by another order of the same date, his services were dispensed with by giving one months' wages in lieu of notice u/s. 25f of the INdustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act ). Against his termination order dt. 23/11/93 the appellant filed writ petition No. 6999/93 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge under the impugned order. Hence this special appeal.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order of the learned Single Judge so also other documents brought on record. As per initial appointment order dt. 20/06/87 it was specifically stated that the appellant was given purely temporary appointment under N. R. E. P. scheme on some terms & conditions, inasmuch as he was on daily wages basis on administrative exigency viz. as and when the work was required under the N. R. E. P. scheme, the employees were taken an work and dispensed with whenever not required. Hence it was the case of he respondent department that it cannot be said that the appellant was purposely given artificial breaks in service and that apart, since the appellant was kept or a work which had come to end, so his services were rightly terminated. According to the respondent Department as stated in the counter to the writ petition, since there was no permanent post available, as was made clear to the appellant, he could not have been given appointment in regular pay scale, and as a matter of right, the appellant cannot claim permanent absorption or appointment in regular pay scale.

(3.) RESULTANTLY, we find no merit in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and consequently, this special appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is affirmed. No order as to costs. .