MOHD ASLAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenged in this writ petition is the order dated 20th March, 2002 passed by the respondent No. 1 and the consequential order dated 7th May, 2002 passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner's earlier absorption on the post of LDC was changed and he was ordered to be absorbed as Sahayak Parcha Vitarak.

(2.) THE petitioner entered in the services of the respondent Municipal Board, Sirohi as Sub Nakedar having been appointed as such on 12th June, 1989. He was later confirmed on this post vide order dated 13th July, 1990. When octroi was absolished by the State Government with realization of octroi in different Municipalities of the State were declared surplus and thus the petitioner was also rendered surplus. THE government however directed their absorption/adjustment on various posts in different Local Bodies of the State. THE Chairman and the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Sirohi at this stage by letter dated 20th August, 2001 requested the Director, Local Bodies for Rajasthan, Jaipur for permission to absorb the petitioner on the post of LDC. Requisite qualification for regular appointment on the post of LDC is Matric or its equivalent qualification which the petitioner possessed. THE Municipal Board, Sirohi in its general meeting held on 31st August, 2001 passed a resolution thereby deciding to absorb the petitioner on the vacant post of LDC and the matter was referred to the Government for its approval. THE Director, Local Bodies of the State by his communication dated 8th February, 2002 granted approval for absorption of the petitioner on the post of LDC and accordingly the respondent Board passed an order dated 25th February, 2002 whereby the petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC and he joined as such on the same date.

(3.) SHRI Snageet Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was substantive employee of the respondent Board and therefore the Board by its unanimous resolution had rightly decided to absorb the petitioner on the post of LDC. When this resolution was approved by the Government, there was no reason to later rescind the same particularly when the consequential order for absorption of the petitioner was passed and he having joined on such post had worked for a fairly long spell of time. SHRI Lodha argued that a right had come to accrue to the petitioner on account of his absorption for continuing on the post of LDC. No opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner nor any notice was given to him prior to his reversion. Shir Lodha argued that the reasons assigned by the respondents for passing the impugned orders are not only sustainable in law but are wholly unfounded being factually incorrect. The so called policy decision to absorb the service personnel from the octroi sections of various Municipalities was no where to be found inasmuch as a large number of employees whose details the petitioner has produced along with rejoinder were absorbed on much higher post of Gram Sewak carrying the pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900, whereas they were holding the post of Sub Nakedar in the pay scale of Rs. 2950-4475 and Naka Guard in the pay scale of Rs. 2650-4000. Absorption of the petitioner was made by the Board by its resolution keeping in view utility of the petitioner, clear the vacant post and the qualification held by the petitioner. Cancellation of such order and consequential absorption of the petitioner on the lower post is absolutely illegal. The impugned orders are therefore liable to be set aside.