Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Leela Ram & Ors. vs . State Of Rajasthan & Ors. on 15 January, 2015
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
1
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6213/2009
Leela Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6213/2009 Leela Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of order : 15.1.2015 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Mr.NR Choudhary, for the petitioners. Mr.Raman Kumar for Mr.Manish Patel, for the respondents.
...
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners, who were given contractual appointments on the posts of Rural Employment Assistant (Gramin Rojgar Sahayak) under the NREG scheme formulated under the NREG Act, have approached this Court praying that the respondents be directed to allow them to continue on the post of Gramin Rojgar Sahayak on contractual basis ; the advertisement dated 5.6.2009 inviting fresh applications for appointment on the said post be declared illegal ; the respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioners on contract basis directly through Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishad instead of the placement agency ; 2
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6213/2009 Leela Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. the respondents be directed to pay honorarium of the post of Gramin Rojgar Sahayak to the petitioners with 10% increase ; and the respondents be restrained from terminating the services of the petitioners on the post of Gramin Rojgar Sahayak.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the similar controversy was examined by this Court in the case of Hukum Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6188/2009 which was decided on 15.7.2010 with certain directions and thus, the matter be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
3. Upon going through the order in the case of Hukum Singh (supra), it is evident that this Court conclusively held that though the respective petitioners would be allowed to work upto the term of contract which was 28.2.2011 but the order would not confer any right on the respective petitioners to seek reemployment or continuity of employment beyond 28.2.2011. Since the said cut off date has already lapsed, it is evident that the right of the petitioners to work against their respective contractual post does not survive any longer. Despite the aforesaid situation and if under the effect of the order dated 15.7.2010 passed in Hukum Singh's case (supra), the petitioners' services have not been terminated till 3 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6213/2009 Leela Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. date and if the respondents require their services on contractual basis, they are at discretion to utilize the services of the petitioners on contractual basis and the disposal of the writ petition shall not come in the way of the petitioners to be so continued in terms of the contract, if permissible and feasible.
4. Consequently, the instant writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
5. No order as to costs.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/S.Phophaliya/