DHANPAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter has been heard for final disposal at admission stage in pursuance of order dated 12.1.1989. The case has a chequered history. The petitioner was appointed as Gram Sewak by District Education Officer, Doongarpur vide order dated 4.11.1981.The appointment was purely temporary for a period of six months. The services of the petitioner were extended from time to time. The last extension was granted on 13.5.1983 vide Annx.1. On 12.4.1984 a notice was served on him intimating that his services shall stand terminated on expiry of one month from the date of notice Annx.2. Against this notice, petitioner went in appeal before Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The Tribunal stayed the operation of the notices served on the petitioner on 12.4.1984, with the result that petitioner continued to be in service. The appeal before the Tribunal did not meet with success and the same was rejected on 10.1.1986. Consequently, District Education Officer, Doongar Pur issued order Annex.4. terminating services of the petitioner with effect from 10.1.1986, the date of which petitioner filed a civil suit in the Court of Munsif Doongar Pur and also obtained ad -interim stay order on 24.3.1986. This interim order was vacated on 20.8.1986. The petitioner went in appeal to the Court of learned District Judge, who rejected his appeal vide order dated 16.7.1987. Eventually, on 22.2.1988, petitioner withdrew the civil suit by moving proper application before the Court of Munsif, Doongar Pur and thereafter, the present writ petition was instituted on 11.4.1988.

(2.) IN this writ petition, the only ground taken before me is that the petitioner was a workman and notice Annx.2 by which his services were sought to be terminated read with Annex.4. amounted to retrenchment of the petitioner and since he had already completed 240 days, his services could not have been dispensed with without complying with the provisions of Section 25F(a) and (b) which required one months notice and payment of compensation equivalent of 15 days average pay for every completed year of continues service or any part thereof in excess of this month. It is therefore, submitted that it should be declared that petitioner continues in service and order of retrenchment should be declared to be null and void. It is also prayed that respondent be directed to absorb the petitioner in service from the date his services were terminated and he be given all consequential benefits.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner elaborating his contentions submits that order dated 12.4.1984 Annex.2 was set at naught or superseded by order Annex,3 is sued by Joint Director [Informal Education) whereby District Education Officer, Doongar Pur was directed to continue petitioner in service. It is submitted that by issuing Annex.3 respondent by necessary implication revoked Annex.2 and therefore Annex.2 could be of no avail to the respondents. It is submitted that viewed in this light Annex.4 is also rendered invalid as much as prior to issue of Annex.4 no notice of retrenchment had been issued at all, and required by Section 25F(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act.