Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Devi Lal vs State & Ors on 20 November, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3275 / 2015
Devi Lal s/o Shri Mukna Ram, aged about 51 years, b/c Bishnoi,
r/o Jorkia, 83 LNP, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar.
3. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Padampur, District Sri
Ganganagar.
4. Gram Panchayat, 83 LNP (Jorkia), Panchayat Samiti, Padampur,
District Sri Ganganagar through its Secretary.
5. Assistant Engineer, Public Health & Engineering Department,
Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.
6. Smt.Chando Devi, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, 83 LNP (Jorkia),
Panchayat Samiti, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.
7. Surendra Kumar s/o Shri Jagdish, b/c Bishnoi, r/o 83 LNP
(Jorkia), Panchayat Samiti, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vikram Singh Rathore for Mr.J.S.Bhaleria
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Kuldeep Singh Solanki for Mr.Manish Patel,
Additional Govt.Counsel.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 20/11/2017
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred with the following prayers :-
"A. The order Annex.P/3 dated 20.02.2015 may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.
B. The respondents may kindly be directed to take (2 of 4) [CW-3275/2015] the petitioner back in service and allow him to work in the scheme i.e. Janta Jal Yojana till the currency of the scheme or till the availability of the regularly selected candidate.
C. The respondent may kindly be directed to release the salary of the month of February 2015.
D. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
E. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."
2. The petitioner was appointed as Pump Operator in Janta Jal Yojana in February, 2010.
3. This Hon'ble Court in Prem Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3586/2011 alongwith ten other analogous matters decided on 02.11.2012, directed minimum wages to the Pump Operators, which was further followed in the judgment of Jagdish Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5954/2017 alongwith two other analogous matters decided on 13.07.2017).
4. The present Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat substituted the petitioner's services on 20.02.2015 with another Pump Operator for no good reason. Annexure-P/3 is a non- speaking order, whereby the respondent has merely substituted the petitioner by respondent No.7, for no reason whatsoever.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the employment was contractual in nature, and therefore, no right (3 of 4) [CW-3275/2015] accrues to the present petitioner so as to assail the order of termination.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the contractual employment of Pump Operators in Janta Jal Yojana have been protected by this Hon'ble Court in various orders regarding their wages. It is also noted by this Court that the petitioner was given appointment in February, 2010. In the case of Mahendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2010 (3) WLC (Raj.) 757, this Hon'ble Court has decided that the concerned petitioners were to work regularly till regularly selected candidate was available and the concerned petitioners were free to participate in the regular selection process.
7. It is settled law that the services of the contractual appointee cannot be terminated without any reason, until regularly selected candidate is available, or the respondents have sufficient reason to terminate his services.
8. In this case, the termination order does not reflect any valid reason, and for that matter, the reason itself, and therefore, the order dated 20.02.2015 (Annexure-P/3) is bad in the eye of law. Furthermore, the person substituting the petitioner, who is respondent No.7 and is a party to the present writ petition, and service has been effected upon him, but has chosen not to represent himself before this Court, is also a contractual employee.
9. In light of the above, the present misc. petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.02.2015 (Annexure-
(4 of 4) [CW-3275/2015] P/3) is quashed and set aside, and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join his service back as Pump Operator in Janta Jal Yojana till the currency of the Scheme or till availability of the regularly selected candidate, and pay him all the consequential salaries, as is payable to the other Pump Operators in the Janta Jal Yojana, as if the petitioner was in continuous service.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. Skant/-