IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5280/1996. Smt.Shanti Devi Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6409/1994. Smt.Shanti Devi Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order:- September 15, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Bhanwar Bagri for the petitioner. Shri L.N. Boss, Additional Government Counsel. Shri A.K. Bansal and Shri K.C. Sharma for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT:-
Both these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that respondents be directed to give her regular appointment on the post of Class-IV w.e.f 15/7/1992 and pay her regular pay scale of that post. When notice of SBCWP No.6409/1994 was issued, respondents terminated her services and petitioner had to filed SBCWP No.5280/1996 with the prayer that verbal termination order dated 10/10/1996 be declared illegal and respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service and regularize her on the post of Class-IV ermployee. This court vide its order dated 5/11/1996 while admitting writ petition directed the respondents that in the meantime, petitioner shall be allowed to continue to work on the same terms and conditions in which she was working. That interim order was confirmed subsequent by this court on 22/7/1997. This matter has now come up for hearing in the year 2009.
Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is working with the respondents as Class-IV right from 13/7/1992 in the Government Girls Primary School Bundi. She was initially being paid consolidated salary of Rs.100/- per month and subsequently this was increased to Rs.150/- per month. Petitioner on 21/1/1992 submitted representation for regularization of her services and for paying her salary in the regular pay scale. Certificate was issued by the Headmaster of the Government Girls School Sumerganj to the effect that petitioner is working regularly in the school from 15/7/1982. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is living in poor condition and her services were terminated only because she dared to approach this court for regularization in regular pay scale. It is contended that the Government of Rajasthan has recently taken a policy decision to regularise all such temporary ad hoc/daily wages employees who have served with the government for more than 10 years. Learned counsel submitted that even if period subsequent to that of illegal termination of the order is taken, she has completed more than 14 years without there being any break in service. Learned counsel for petitioner has cited the judgment of this court in Sitaram Sharma Vs. State and ors. (SBCWP No.6316/97) decided on 2/6/2005 and Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2007(3) CDR 1993 (Raj.) in which case also, case of the petitioners was considered for regularization. Respondents be therefore directed to consider case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid judgments and order of termination be set-aside and quashed.
Shri L.N. Boss, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner was engaged only on part time basis. She was merely required to serve drinking water to the students of the school. She was not appointed against the sanctioned post of Class-IV employee. Her appointment was not made by regular mode of selection. She used to hardly discharge duties of one or two hours in the school. It is denied that services of the petitioner were terminated. She on her own had stopped working with the school and not taking any salary since 10/10/1996. Writ petition therefore be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that in so far as the order of verbal termination of the petitioner dated 10/10/1996 is concerned, respondents denied that they ever terminated services of the petitioner. According to that, petitioner on her own stopped coming to the duties and receiving salary and therefore it cannot be said that her services are terminated. If that be so, order of termination in any case as per own saying of the respondents did not come into the being. If otherwise respondents terminated services of the petitioner because she approached this court and filed SBCWP No.6409/1994, which action cannot be appreciated. For either of the reasons, order of termination cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set-aside.
As regards the other relief of regularization of the petitioner in service and payment of regular pay scale, this court in similar case of Sitaram Sharma directed respondents to consider case of the petitioner for giving regular appointment on the post of Class-IV and further directed to pay salary on the regular post of Class-IV employee. But then, petitioner has now submitted that respondents themselves have taken a policy decision to regularise services of such daily wages employees/temporary/ad hoc who have been working with the respondents for more than 10 years without the intervention of the court orders. Case of the petitioner should be considered in that scheme because as per own stand of the respondents, they did not terminate services of the petitioner. In fact, she continuously worked with them since 1982 and has thus completed more than 27 years of service and if the period is counted from the date earlier than passing of the interim order dated 5/11/1996 passed by this court is considered, then also petitioner still completed 14 years.
As regards question of regularization and payment of salary of regular pay scale is concerned, writ petition SBCWP No.5280/1996 is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for regularization in their recently formulated scheme. The fact that petitioner has been described as part time worker of the respondents, would not be an impediment in not regularising her services for the given fact that she has been continuously serving the respondents for more than 27 years and describing her payment as part time, nothing debars her in getting legitimate claim. Necessary orders of regularization shall be passed after considering her case within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is produced before the respondents.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
anil