RAVI PRAKASH Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to be issued to the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner and in case any termination order is passed that may be quashed. It has been prayed that the services of the petitioners may be regularised with effect from the date of their initial appointment and the order dated December 28, 1992 (Anx. 5) passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Local Self Department, Rajasthan Jaipur may be quashed and set aside.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the cast as alleged by the petitioners are that due to increase in population of Nagour, the petitioners were appointed as 'safai Karamchari' by the Chairman, Municipal Board, Nagour vide orders dated September 26, 1992 and October 9, 1992 (Anx. 2 and 3 respectively ). It is alleged that after three months of service suddenly the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Local Self Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide letter Anx. 5 dated December 28, 1992 directed the Chairman, Municipal Board, Nagour that Class IV employees appointed may be terminated after giving the benefit of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act as there is irregularity in their appointment. The Executive Officer again recommended to the Respondent No. 1. Chairman, Municipal Board for terminating the services of the petitioners mentioning that they should not complete 240 days of their service period vide letter No. 108 dated April 16, 1993 (Anx. 6 ). Thereafter the Dy. Director, Directorate Local Bodies, Jaipur issued Anx. 7 dated May 22, 1993 stating that 21 Safai Haramchari and others may be terminated from service after complying with Section 25-F and they shall not be paid salary. The petitioners have alleged that their services have not been terminated and most of them have completed their 240 days service period in a calendar year. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) THIS writ petition has been filed on May 31, 1993. Notice to show cause was issued on June 4, 1993. Thereafter on June 18, 1993 while issuing fresh notices, meanwhile it has been ordered that the payment of salary shall not be stopped until their services are in fact lawfully terminated. In pursuance of the notice reply has been filed by the Respondent No. 3 and also filed documents Ex. R 3/1 to R 3/5 raising a preliminary objection that joint writ petition is not maintainable as the Petitioners No. 1 to 10 were appointed by the Chairman on September 26, 1992 and Petitioners No. 11 to 16 were appointed vide order dated October 9, 1993 (Anx. 3) and as the petitioners were appointed on different dates and also joined duty on different dates this joint petition is not maintainable. It has been stated that since the petition has been filed on behalf of 15 petitioners Court fee is also required on behalf of each petitioner without which it cannot be entertained. It has also been stated that the State Government vide its order dated December 17, 1992 directed to constitute a committee for selection on the post of Sweepers and it has been mentioned that while making appointments on the post of Sweeper the instructions given in the State Government order dated November 4, 1992 shall be followed but without constituting the committee all the appointments were made by the Chairman in violation of above circular. It has been further stated that according to the Section 68 (4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act all powers for signatures have been given to the Executive Officer and unless any licence or permission or order is authenticated by the Executive Officer it shall not be legal or valid. The Respondent No. 3 has stated that there were financial constraints against the Municipal Board but the appointments were made at the time of ban without there being any vacant post available with the Board.