JUDGMENT
A.K. Mathur, J.
1. Petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the order of termination dated 4th November, 1989 (Anx. 2) may be quashed.
2. Petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the order of termination dated 4th November, 1989 (Anx. w) may be quashed.
3. Petitioner was appointed as L.D.C. on daily wages by the order dated 13.6.1986. This appointment was given for 3 months and in pursuance thereof petitioner has joined on 16th June 1986. Thereafter by the order dated 12th December, 1986 petitioner was appointed in regular pay scale on the temporary basis till the selected candidate from the Rajasthan Public Service Commission is available whichever is earlier. On 4th November, 1989 petitioner’s services were terminated on account of the selected candidates received from the R.P.S.C. The grievance of the petitioner is that the termination of the petitioner is in violation of Section 25F(a) and (b) and persons junior to the petitioners have been appointed.
4. A reply has been filed by the respondents and respondents No. 4’s version is that the petitioner’s services have been terminated in terms of the stipulated order that in the event of duly selected candidates are made available from the R.P.S.C. services of petitioner shall go terminated. It is also admitted that Sarv Shri Bhanwarlal Shrimali; Karnidan; Shankerlal; Sujeet Kumar and Nathuram were appointed later than the petitioner, but they are on daily wages.
5. I have heard both the learned Counsel and perused the record.
6. The first and the foremost question in the present case is that when duly selected candidates have been received from the R.P.S.C. the services of the petitioners were terminated. Whether in the such circumstances compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is necessary or not.
7. This contention of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted for the simple reason that according to S. 2(oo)(bb) it has been clearly laid down that in case the incumbent’s services are terminated or retrenched under stipulated terms of the appointment order then that will not amount to retrenchment. Therefore, the petitioner’s services have been terminated on account of the selected candidates made available from the R.P.S.C. as such this termination does not amount to retrenchment. Therefore this contention of the learned Counsel is over-ruled.
8. Next learned Counsel submitted that persons junior to the petitioner have been retained. It has been pointed out that Sarv Shri Karnidan was appointed on 9th July 1989, Shankerlal on 16th August, 1989, Sujeet Kumar on 28th September and Nathuram on 9th May 1989 at various places like Jayal, Baap, Luni, Phalodi etc.
9. The respondents submitted that they have been appointed on daily wages. Be that as it may when junior persons are retained on daily wages then same offer should have been made to petitioner also. In this view of the matter, the respondents are directed to retain the petitioner on daily wages so long as junior to the petitioner are retained.
10. The writ petition is disposed of in the light of the aforesaid observations.