Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish Sen vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 2 August, 2016
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
[1]
SBCWP No.788/2013
Jagdish Sen vs. State & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.788/2013 Jagdish Sen vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of order : 02/08/2016 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Mr. T.S. Rathore, for the petitioner. Ms. Shweta Bora on behalf of Mr. Anil Bissa, AGC, for the respondents.
**** By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Jagdish Sen has approached this Court for assailing the order (Annexure-6) dated 02.06.2011 whereby, he was relieved from his contractual services with the respondent No.7 Assistant Drug Controller & Drug Licensing Authority, Pali.
The petitioner had been engaged as a Data Entry Operator under the Respondent No.7 through a contract executed on 03.12.2010, which has been filed on record of the writ petition as Annexure-4. The petitioner has not disputed that the contract was for a period of fixed term. The respondent No.7 relieved the petitioner from his contractual assignment on 02.06.2011 on the ground that funds had not been allocated by the Government for continuing the services of the contractual employees under the NRHM Scheme. The [2] SBCWP No.788/2013 Jagdish Sen vs. State & Ors.
petitioner has set up a case in the writ petition that subsequently, the requisite funds were sanctioned and, therefore, the respondents are under obligation to revive his contractual assignment.
The respondents filed a reply to the writ petition wherein, they have basically justified the decision of discontinuing the petitioner's contractual assignment on the ground of non- availability of funds. It is also pleaded that the writ petition has been filed after an undue delay and thus the same should be dismissed I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
It is admitted case of the petitioner that he was engaged by the respondents on contractual basis. The discontinuance of his contractual services vide order (Annexure-6) dated 02.06.2011 was not stigmatic but was necessitated because the Government of India had not allocated funds for the Drug Control Department under the NRHM Scheme. True it is that financial sanction for the very post on which, the petitioner was working was revived on 31.08.2012 but the fact remains that the petitioner has not set up a case in the writ petition that any other contractual employee was engaged to work on the post on which he was working after the receipt of such financial sanction or that even any advertisement had been issued by the respondents for making such recruitment. Therefore, this [3] SBCWP No.788/2013 Jagdish Sen vs. State & Ors.
Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition, which is hereby rejected. It is, however, expected that in case, the respondents decide afresh to engage a Data Entry Operator on contractual basis in the Drug Controller & Drug Licensing Authority, Pali then the petitioner shall be given preference. Stay application is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J.
/tikam daiya/ Item No.63