RAJ HOUSING BOARD Vs. RATAN LAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two special appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 25. 10. 1990, whereby two writ petitions No. 69/1987 and 2439/1990 filed by the respondent, Ratan Lal Sharma, were allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. (Judgment reported in 1990 (1) RLR 255 ).

(2.) RESPONDENT Ratan Lal Sharma was appointed as Personal Assistant to the Chairman of the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur in the pay scale of Rs. 620-1100 with effect from 4. 08. 1982 in terms of the order dated 2. 09. 1982 issued under the signatures of the then Secretary of the Board. This order dated 2nd Sept. 1982 was modified on 6. 09. 1982, mentioning therein that the respondent was to be paid on contract basis on a fixed pay of Rs. 730/- per month with other facilities like DA, HRA, CCA and other allowances admissible on such pay from time to time till his services are found suitable by the Chairman. After the resignation of the then Chairman of the Rajasthan Housing Board Shri R. N. Chaudhary, an order was passed on 12. 01. 1984 terminating the services of the respondent recording therein that the term of employment of Ratan Lal Sharma expires from the date of resignation of Shri Chaudhary and, hence his services are terminated. This order dated 12. 01. 1984 was later on withdrawn vide order dated 31. 01. 1984, which reads as under: - "office order No. PER Cell 36/dated 12. 1. 1984 by which the services of Shri Ratan Lal Sharma P. A. to Chairman were terminated is hereby withdrawn. This bears the approval of the Chairman, R. H. B. , Jaipur. "

(3.) AS against the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the Rajasthan Housing Board by Shri M. I. Khan, Addl. Advocate General, Shri Satish Chandra Agarwal appearing for the respondent contended that the services of the respondent could not be considered to be contractual indefinitely and once the order terminating the contractual services had been recalled on 31. 01. 1984, there was no question of giving any appointment on contract to the respondent on 31. 01. 1984. Shri Agarwal has submitted that the successor Chairman and other functionaries of the Board had found the services of the respondent very useful to the Board and in the posting order, it was mentioned that he was posted for smooth working and for reasons of efficiency. So far as the qualifications are concerned, apart from quoting certain cases in which persons were continuing on equivalent post even without the qualification of graduation and while being matriculates only, he submitted that the respondent had also rendered the services to the Board for a period over 8 years and he had also proved his worth on all the posts and, as such, at this stage even the want of qualification prescribed under the regulations could not be an impediment in regularisation of services in the Board and in no case he can be given a posting against any post carrying a pay scale short of Rs. 820-1550, lest it would be a case of punitive reversion.