VIJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has prayed for quashing of order dated December 30, 1993 issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Jaipur (West) by which the service of the petitioner has been terminated as a measure of retrenchment. He has also prayed that the respondents be directed to treat him as semi-permanent Cattle Guard in the Department.

(2.) FACTS of the case lie in a very narrow compass. According to the petitioner, he had 1 joined service as Cattle Guard on being appointed as such in Jaipur Range of the Forest Department with effect from May 16, 1989 under the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Combined Plantation Project, Jaipur West, Jaipur. From the date of his appointment, the petitioner continuously served the Department till the issue of order dated December 30, 1993 (Annexure-II) retrenching the petitioner from service by paying him pay in lieu of one month's notice and retrenchment compensation for the service rendered by him.

(3.) THE petitioner has pleaded that after having rendered more than 2 years service he became entitled to be declared as semi-permanent. His name had been included in the seniority list of daily wage employees which was circulated by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Jaipur West vide his letter dated October 1, 1992. He was placed at Sr. No. 83 in the said seniority list. According to the petitioner, in terms of the directions given by the Supreme Court in its order dated October 29, 1991, passed in Contempt Petition No. 158/1990, the petitioner has a legitimate claim to be treated as semi-permanent. But without granting him the status of semi-permanency, respondent No. 3 has terminated his services on the assumption that the petitoner continues to be a daily wage employee. The petitioner has pleaded that one Shri Mahaveer-Jat, who has been placed below him in the seniority list has been given the benefit of semi-permanency and by not giving similar benefit to the petitioner, the respondents have discriminated him and have violated his right of equality before law. The petitioner has also pleaded that while bringing about retrenchment of his service, respondent No. 3 has not complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.