SATISH KUMAR PORWA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was appointed as L. D. C. on temporary basis in the office of Director, Gram Vikas and Panchayatraj Department in panchayat samiti, Atru on daily wages, had last served in the capacity of junior accountant in the said panchayat samiti. He has challenged the impugned order of termination, dated May 24, 1989 by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the impugned retrenchment of the petitioner from service could not be done without complying the mandatory provisions of Section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The short question which arises for consideration of the Court in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner who is a temporary appointee of the panchayat samiti and appointed for working in a particular project, can claim benefit of regularisation in service on completion of the Project on the ground that he had completed 240 days of service as on the date termination order is passed?

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as daily wager on the post of L. D. C. on June 22, 1988 vide Annexure 1. This appointment of the petitioner was done by respondent No. 2 i. e. , Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Smaiti, Atru District Kota, against a confirmed vacancy. On March 24, ! 989 respondent No. 1, i. e. , the Director and Special Administration Secretary, Gramin Vikas and Panchayatraj Dept. , Rajasthan, Jaipur issued a circular containing administration guidelines vide Annexure 2, dated March 24, 1989 to various panchayat samities and Zila Parishads in the State of Rajasthan, specifically prohibiting panchayat samities and Zila Parishads from appointing any person on temporary basis or on daily wages basis on the ground that it is not proper to appoint the candidates on temporary basis since when their services are terminated by the department, they move to the High Court by filing writ petitions and directions are issued by the High Court to take them back to service which results in enormous financial constraint to the department and hence appointments in future should be made only against confirmed vacancies, since otherwise any termination of an employee would attract the penal provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, i. e. Section 25b and F of the Act. It was further directed by the said circular that those persons who were already serving on temporary basis, their termination should not be done without resort to the provisions of Section 25f of the Act. That in view of the aforesaid directions issued by the State Government contained in Circular dated March 24, 1989 as referred to above, services of the petitioner were terminated by Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Atru (respondent No. 2) vide impugned order dated May 24, 1989 vide Annex. 3. It is the said impugned order of termination which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition on the various grounds inter alia (1) that the termination of the services of the petitioner has been brought about without following the principles of natural justice, since the petitioner was appointed after due selection on the basis of interview, (2) the impugned Circular, dated March 24, 1989 confers legal right on the petitioner to be considered for regular appointment through District Establishment Committee, (3) that there has been violation of directions issued by the respondent in case of the petitioner by not having resort to the provisions of Section 25f of the Act as the same has not been complied with hence the order of termination of service of the petitioner is illegal and deserves to be quashed, (4) that no show cause notice was served on the petitioner prior to termination of his service resulting in gross injustice and (5) the order of termination amounts to retrenchment which could only be done after compliance with the provisions of Section 25f of the Act.

(3.) IN the reply to show cause notice filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 it has been contended that the petitioner was appointed as junior accountant vide Annex. 1 under Special Scheme ,i. e, 'jeevandhara and other Famine Scheme" which were being carried out under Panchayat Samiti, Atru. The appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary as a daily wager @ Rs. 25/- per day and the petitioner cannot gain any legal right to get his service regularised on the post of daily wager. It has been further contended in the reply that it has been wrongly stated in the petition that the petitioner was given appointment on the post of L. D. C. and thus the claim made by the petitioner even otherwise does not stand to reason since his appointment was never made on the post of L. D. C. and hence there is no reason to grant any relief to the petitioner. This fact is fully fortified from the perusal of Annex. 1 which is appointment order of the petitioner as junior accountant and in which there is no mention of the petitioner's appointment as L. D. C. and thus the claim of the petitioner is even otherwise falsified from the perusal of said annexure as well as other documents filed on the record. It has been further contended in para 5 of the reply that this court as well as the Apex Court have already taken the view that services of the project based employees who are appointed or employed against any particular project, come to an end immediately on completion of the said project unless they are absorbed in any project or scheme by the concerned department, hence no legal right or authority vests with the appointee to claim any regularisation or confirmation, since the appointment is only continued till the demand exists.