Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jugal Singh vs State Of Raj And Ors on 21 August, 2019
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.83/2008
in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.928/2002
Jugal Singh S/o late Shri Angad Singh, aged about 45 years,
resident of Pratap Nagar, Nar Mata Ji Ka Mandir, Loha Khan,
Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary to
Government, Women & Child Development Department,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Project Director, District Women & Child Development
Agency, Ajmer.
3. Judge, Labour Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer.
-----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Shri Hitesh Bagri
For Respondent)s) : None
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
21/08/2019
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE DHADDHA, J.)
1. This special appeal has been filed by the appellant Jugal Singh against the order dated 13.8.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition challenging the award dated 28.3.2001 passed by the learned Labour Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer whereby the learned Tribunal rejected the claim presented by the appellant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was initially appointed on the post of driver on temporary basis vide (Downloaded on 28/08/2019 at 10:42:42 PM) (2 of 4) [SAW-83/2008] order dated 15.7.1985 in the office of District Women & Child Development Agency, Ajmer in the pay-scale of Rs.490-10-550- 15-640-20-840 along with other admissible allowances after adopting due process of recruitment followed by the respondents before giving appointment to the appellant. The services of the appellant were continue. The appellant discharged his duties with utmost satisfaction of higher authorities. The appellant purported to have been issued show cause notice on 7.10.1994 under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The services of the appellant were terminated by the respondents on 8.12.1995. Before terminating of the services, neither any enquiry was conducted nor notice was given. Subsequently, a number of other persons who were appointed on the post of Driver in different agencies throughout the State, were allowed to continue in service. The appellant moved a reference before the learned Labour Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer whereby the reference was dismissed vide order dated 28.3.2001. That after, the appellant moved before the High Court whereby the writ petition was dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.8.2007.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned orders dated 28.3.2001 and 13.8.2007 are perverse and contrary to the material available on record. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant produced on record an appointment order dated 15.7.1985 (Annexure-1 in writ petition) in which it has been specifically mentioned that the appellant had been appointed as driver on 15.7.1985 in the office of District Women & Child Development Agency, Ajmer in the pay-
scale of Rs.490-10-550-15-640-20-840 along with other
(Downloaded on 28/08/2019 at 10:42:42 PM)
(3 of 4) [SAW-83/2008]
admissible allowances after adopting due process of recruitment. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was given the prescribed pay-scale along with other admissible allowances of the post of driver, were given to the appellant at par with the regularly and thus he was a permanent employee of the State Government. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the services of the appellant were terminated by the respondent without following due process of law. As no enquiry was conducted nor any notice was given to him. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had rendered more than 10 years of continue service, the appellant was entitled to be given the benefit of absorption according to the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondents have not complied with the provisions of sections 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned orders and the material available on record.
5. The appellant in his statement before the learned Tribunal has clearly stated that he was appointed as temporary driver. He stated that the scheme in which he was appointed, had been abolished and the post of driver was not no more. The appellant admitted in his statement that he had been given Rs.19,000/- - 20,000/- at the time of his termination and he had taken the said amount without any objection. The service of the appellant was limited to the scheme only. The learned Tribunal in its order clearly observed that the respondent had not violated the (Downloaded on 28/08/2019 at 10:42:42 PM) (4 of 4) [SAW-83/2008] mandatory provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Single Judge also had not found any illegality and infirmity in the order of the learned Tribunal. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. So, the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
6. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN /17/C1 (Downloaded on 28/08/2019 at 10:42:42 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)