DINESH CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was filed on 23.5.1990 for treating the petitioner regular appointee on the post of Computer Operator and with a further prayer that even if the petitioner's appointment is not regularised, the respondents may be directed to continue the petitioner on the post till a regularly selected person become available. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on daily wages as Computer Operator on 12th April, 1989 in the District Rural Development Agency (for Short, 'D.R.D.A.') and since then he was continuing on the post as daily -rated workman and was being paid wages at the rate of Rs. 18.52 per day. Vide order dated 18/19th May, 1990, the petitioner was offered six months' further appointment on contract basis, for fix remuneration of Rs. 2700/ - while he was still continuing in the services of the respondents. It was alleged by the petitioner that though the aforesaid order has not been formally served on him yet in view of the aforesaid order since his status as Government employee was sought to be affected by converting his appointment as a Government servant to a service on contract basis, he moved to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the afforesaid reliefs.

(2.) A show -cause notice was issued by this Court on 24.5.1990 and an interim order was passed in the following terms: In the meanwhile, the petitioner's services will be allowed to continue till further orders or till the regularly selected candidate is made available, whichever is earlier.

(3.) IN the first instance, the petitioner has contended that the Annx. 3 dated 7.7.1990 has been issued in total dis -regard of the orders of this Court . This Court has directed to continue the petitioner's services until regularly selected candidate is made available or the Court were to pass further orders on the Stay Application. It is common ground that no fresh appointment has taken place after filing of the writ petition or, even after passing of the interim order and the vacancy at Chittorgarh has been filled by transfer; suggesting thereby that the posts are transferable and it is not a case of fresh appointment. In para 10[ii) of the return it has also been stated by the respondents that a post of Computer Operator is still existing, however, while the termination order speaks that the reason for not continuing the services of the petitioner is in terms of the orders of the High Court and no regularly selected candidate is available to fill in the vacancy, curiously new grounds have been stated for terminating the services of the petitioner. In the face of Annx. 3, which clearly speaks of the facts that the petitioner's services were terminated, the respondents makes bold to say in para 10(iv) of the return that the petitioner was never removed from work but he himself remained absent from work without informing the employer meaning thereby that the petitioner has not been removed from service but he voluntarily ceased to be working on the post. Suffice it to say, that the petitioner was working on the post from 12.4.1 989 and was continuing under the orders of the Court on 7.7.1990 and he could not have been treated to have been treated ceased to be an employee of the State on the ground of continued absence from duty. If that were so, his services could have been terminated only in the manner known to law, that is to say, after holding an inquiry and passing an appropriate order of removal from the services in accordance with the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and following the procedure under the Rules concerning disciplinary action.