RAJENDRA SWAROOP MATHUR Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER challenges the validity of the order 29.11,1 990 giving him notice that his services will be terminated on the expiry of thirty days from the receipt of the notice. The petitioner's case is that he was possessing Diploma in Civil Engineering and was appointed as Junior Engineer on 23.11.1984 temporarily and on the said post, he was allowed to continue by passing orders from time until the impugned order dated 29.11.1990 was made. Petitioner contends that his services have been terminated in apparent violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, inasmuch as no retrenchment compensation has been paid alongwith termination of his service. He further contends that in terms of Ex.4 dated 19.1.1989 he was entitled to be considered for regularisation of his services as he has completed more than two hundred and forty days in the service of the respondents and forty days in the service of the respondents commensurating with the qualification held by him against the post available at the Municipality. The petitioner further states that in terms of Circular dated 19.1.1989, petitioner has completed two hundred and forty days of service as on the cut off date i.e. 31.12.1986 and, therefore, he was entitled to be considered for regularisation and not for termination.

(2.) THE respondent's only contention in the return is that since Municipal Board, Falna Kudala has been constituted into a class IV Municipality, it does not have a post of Junior Engineer in the Subordinate and Ministrial Staff Service and the Junior Engineer can be appointed by the State of Rajasthan only.

(3.) HAVING considered the material placed on record, in my opinion the petition merits acceptance. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was in service of the respondent Municipality for almost a period of six years before the impugned notice terminating his services was served on him. Petitioner being a technical hand working in the Municipality is clearly entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, before termination of the services of the petitioner became effective, this Court passed an interim order on 19.12.1990 that in the meanwhile, the petitioner shall continue and, therefore, services of the petitioner have not yet come to an end. Therefore, it is premature to express any opinion about compliance of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The issuance of Annex.4 dated 19.1.89 by the Govt. is not disputed. The order Annex.4 dated 19.1.89 does not state that the incumbent serving in respective Municipality should be considered for regularisation against any particular post but it clearly states that case of regularisation has to be considered again3t any of the posts available with the Municipality for which the incumbent is considered to be qualified. This exercise apparently does not appear to have been undertaken by the respondents. Unless it pan be said that there is no post available commensurating With the qualification of the petitioner on which his services can be regularised, the respondents could not have terminated the services of the petitioner after a period of six years merely on the ground that the post of Junior Engineer does not exist without considering whether he is otherwise eligible to be regularised on a post for which he is qualified.