PRABHU DAYAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by this writ petition has challenged his discharge from the service

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as Group Sachiv on ad hoc basis in the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti, Shahpura in the pay scale of 295 -500 by the order dated 24 -3 -1982 vide Anx. 1 Thereafter his term of appointment was further extended by the order dated 20 -4 -1982 for another period of six months. The case of the petitioner was placed before the Administration and Finance Standing Committee. The said Committee by their resolution dated 2 -8 -1982 decided that petitioner's services may be regularised because he is likely to be over age It is further said that in this connection the Secretary Zila Parishad, Bhilwara may be approached for sympathetical consideration. Petitioner further submits that he had given in writing to the respondent Samiti that he agreed to continue in service and if his services are not extended by the Zila Parishad, he will not claim any salary for the period beyond the extension period. He submits that he had been allowed to continue till 31 -1 -1983 and thereafter he was orally told that he cannot be kept in service. In this back ground petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) MR . Mridul appearing for the petitioner has raised three principal arguments. He has submitted that the petitioner's removal from service amounts to retrenchment as defined in Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner's removal also does not fall in the exceptions made in the definition, therefore, his removal from service is retrenchment and in the case of petitioner he has been sought to be retrenched without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such he is entitled to get a declaration for continuance in service in the Panchayat Samiti. In this connection Mr. Mridul has invited my attention to Mohanlal v. Management Bharat Electronics Ltd. 1981 S.C. 1253. Mr. Singhvi submitted that this case arose from the Industrial Tribunal whereas for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 the court has to examine as to whether appointment of the incumbent was in accordance with the Rules or not. If the appointment was against the Rules, then such illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. In this connection Mr. Singhvi has cited Sang Singh v. Municipal Board, Pokaran 1980 RLW 397.