MUKESH KUMAR MALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief claimed in the petition is, that the respondents may be directed to make the payment of salary, due from December, 2003, and to continue to make regular payment of salary in future. The other relief claimed is, that the respondents be directed not to restrain the petitioner from making his signatures in the attendance register, and the petitioner be allowed to work till the completion of the programme.

(2.) The factual averments are, that under the Scheme Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, the petitioner was appointed by Block Research Centre Facilitator (BRCF), as a daily rated Class IV employee, at a salary of Rs. 60/- per day. It is alleged in para-4 of the petition, that the applications were invited for the post of Class IV employees, as per the requirement of the programme, the petitioner also applied for the post, and in view of his qualification he was selected and appointed. It was also pleaded, that a copy of the provisions to make appointment of employees will be kept ready at the time of hearing before Hon'ble Court. Then, it is also pleaded in this very para, that A photo copy/typed copy of the application of the petitioner by which he applied for appointment and the letter dt. 4.2.2003 are enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-2 & ANNEXURE-3 respectively. The case of the petitioner is that since then he is continuously working. Then, it is alleged, that the respondents were giving salary every month by bill and cheque, and attendance was marked. Salary bills have been produced as Annexure-4. Then, it is alleged, that abruptly the respondents stopped making payment of salary in the month of December, 2003, without any reason, and when the petitioner sent a letter for getting the current and due salary, he was restrained from putting the signature in the attendance register. This letter has been produced as Annexure-5. Case of the petitioner further is, that the petitioner being a senior most Class IV employee under respondent no.4, is entitled to remain in service until programme is completed, and the action of the respondents in not giving salary is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and malicious. Then, it is alleged, that the respondents issued advertisement on 11.2.2004 for filling up the employees in the said programme, which shows that the programme will continue for long.

(3.) A reply has been filed by the respondents contending inter alia, that the petitioner has not come with clean hands, and has deliberately pleaded wrong facts, inasmuch as, the averments made regarding issuance of advertisement, submission of the application, and his having been selected, are all false facts. Neither any such applications were invited, nor petitioner applied, nor there was any selection board, nor was the petitioner appointed. It was also pleaded, that the petitioner also did not work in the office of the answering respondents, inasmuch as there were only three employees, being, Hazari Mal Solanki, Narain Lal Gehlot and Ganga Ram Suthar. It is also pleaded in the reply, that Hazari Mal was working as BRCF, who happens to be the real maternal uncle of the petitioner, and it appears, that the documents like Annexure-4 have been fraudulently prepared by the said maternal uncle who had superannuated on 31.8.2003. Annexures- 2 and 3 have been pleaded to be cooked up documents.