VEERA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition is the second round of litigation in which the petitioner is challenging the validity of the order dated 6.12.2000 (Annex.4) passed by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Chouhtan whereby the petitioner was terminated from service after giving one month's notice under Section 25F of the I.D. Act.

(2.) AS per the facts of the case, the petitioner was appointed as Class IV employees on daily rated basis in the year 1989 but he was not allowed regular pay scale of Class IVth employee, therefore, for grant of regular pay and regularization SBCWP No. 550/1994 was preferred by the p in the year 1994, in which vide order dated 26.5.1995 the respondents were directed to pay minimum of pay scale to the petitioner for the post of Class IV employee and further a direction was issued to consider his case for regularization in service on the post of Class IV employee. Against the said judgment, the respondent department preferred DBSAW No. 737/1995, but the Division Bench of this Court dismissed that special appeal vide judgment dated 26.8.1996. The State Government further preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the special leave to appeal No. 25183/1996 filed against the judgment of Division Bench was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 8.10.1999.

(3.) IN this petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 6.12.2000 passed by the Vikas Adhikari, Chauhtan, District Barmer. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that notice dated 6.12.2000 is patently illegal notice because after marathon of litigation, the services of the petitioner were regularized and he was granted regular pay scale in pursuance of direction issued by this Court, therefore, when petitioner's services were already regularized in compliance of order passed by this Court then there was no question to apply the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act because to terminate a regular employee, the respondents were under obligation to take recourse to of disciplinary proceedings, if any misconduct was committed by the petitioner, but in very casual manner while giving one month notice under Section 25F of the I.D. Act that too without compensating, the services of the petitioner were terminated in the grab of public interest, therefore, the action of the respondents was totally unconstitutional.