SHAKUNTLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions are disposed of by one single order as identical questions of fact and law are involved in these cases. The petitioners were appointed as Class-lv servant in Medical and Health Department by order dated 1-9-84. The above appointments were given after interviewing the petitioners by a Board consisting of five members i. e. Collector, S. D. M. , Treasurer C. M. H. O. and Deputy Chief Medical and Health Officer. According to the appointment letters the petitioners were appointed on daily wages of Rs. 9/- per day which was subsequently revised to Rs. 11/- per day with effect from 1-1-85. The case of the petitioners is that their services were terminated by order dated 1-4-86 while the services of 8 candidates have been regularised. It has been submitted that there was no mistake or deficiency in the work of the petitioner nor any adverse remarks were ever made in the service record of the petitioners. It has been submitted that the services of the 8 persons who were similarly situated as the petitioners were also terminated by order dated 1-4-86, but in their cases the department passed an order on 1-3-86 and regularised their services on a back date. It has been submitted that the action taken by the respondents was arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE State in its reply has stated that the petitioners were appointed on daily wages basis. THEir services were terminated on account of abolition of posts. It has been further submitted that eight persons were observed on the basis of the work and performance in the department and because of creation of new posts. It has been further submitted that the appointment of the petitioners was purely on urgent basis on daily wages contract which was liable to be terminated as and when the work was over or the posts were abolished. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire case and have thoroughly perused the record. A perusal of the record shows that the services of all the petitioners including the eight persons were terminated by an order dated 1st April, 1986. However, the services of eight persons have been regularised by an order dated 31st March, 1986. Incase the services of the petitioners were terminated on account of abolition of posts as the State Government wants to justify, there was no question of regularising the services of eight persons on 31st March, 86. It is not understandable as to how the service of eight, persons were regularised by an order dated 31st March, 1986, when their names are also included in the order of terminating the services of the petitioners as well as the eight persons. THE action of the State Government in these circumstances cannot be justified.