KESHU LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case are identical to the facts involved in Kailash Chandra vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (1), In addition thereto, another fact which has come on record and which has not been disputed is that after the termination on purported ground that work for which the petitioner have been appointed has come to end, another person namely one Prakash Chandra has been appointed as Driver to discharge the duty which the petitioners were discharging under the Municipal Board, Rajsamand until first week of December, 1993.

(2.) THE other facts which emanate clearly from the record are that the petitioners were appointed as Driver on daily wages and continued as such for more than one year when their services were terminated verbally w. e. f. 02. 12. 1993. THE petitioners performed their duties until fir. 12. 1993, however, salary was paid to them only upto August, 1993. THE immediate cause of termination was stated to be the demand for better service conditions by claiming fixation in the regular pay scale and the benefit of Dearness Allowance available to the regular employees. THE appointment was on muster roll. It was alleged that before termination neither notice nor salary in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation has been paid, the remuneration in lieu of notice had been offered after terminating services vide letter dated 22. 12. 1993 stating that the services have already been terminated and salary in lieu of notice is being sent alongwith the letter. THE cheque of Rs. 1,040/- dated 22. 12. 1993 had been attached alongwith the said letter.

(3.) IN the present case, admittedly, the wages in lieu of notice had been sent to the petitioner on 22. 12. 1993 and the retrenchment has taken prior thereto, the compliance of Section 25-F has been only in breach thereof. It has not been even averred in reply to the writ petition that retrenchment compensation has ever been paid or offered though in the connected (Kailash Chandra vs. State & Ors.) (supra), it has been noticed that the retrenchment compensation has also been offered in Feb. , 1994 and not prior to that date. Apparently, on admitted facts, the retrenchment is invalid and cannot be sustained.