MOHD HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed as Nakedar at Municipal Board, Chhapar on 26.12.1964 on temporary basis. On the said post, petitioner continued until impugned order dated 9.11.1981 was passed. After serving for seventeen years on the post of Nakedar, petitioner's services were sought to be terminated under Rule 23 A of the Raj. Service Rules by treating the petitioner still temporary. Learned Counsel for the petitioner laces reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Shri Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation : (1990)ILLJ320SC . In the first instance, it is contended that after 17 years' continuous service, petitioner cannot still be termed as temporary so as to liables to be removed from service under Rule 23A of the Rajasthan Service Rules. Secondly, it is contended that from the order itself, it is apparent that while salary in lieu of one month's notice has been given to the petitioner for bringing about the immediate termination of his services but no retrenchment compensation was given as was required to be paid to him under Section 25F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1 947 and, therefore, the order Annex.3 is void for having not complied -with the condition, precedent for bringing about valid retrenchment.

(2.) IN reply, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that petitioner could not have been appointed as a Nakedar as he is not possessing the requisite qualification meant for the post and also that the petitioner was over -age when he was first appointed on the post of Nakedar. It is further contended by the respondents that a notice under Rule 23A was served on him and, therefore, there was valid termination of the petitioner's services in accordance with the rules. Reference was also made to certain enquiries being conducted which were held against the petitioner in the past suggesting that the petitioner's services were not satisfactory.

(3.) THUS , the petitioner by serving for over a period of seventeen years has acquired valuable practical experience which is sufficient to effectively discharge the duties assigned to him for the post and in view of the authoritative pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, at this stage petitioner could not be held to be merely temporary employee after serving in the cadre of Nakedar for a period of seventeen years merely because the respondents have not chosen to confirm him on the said post.