KAILASH CHANDRA JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
KAILASH CHANDRA JAIN
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)THESE are two identical writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. Writ petition No. 592 of 1967 is by one Kailash Chandra Jain. Writ Petition No. 578 of 1967 is by the State Roadways Workers Union, Jaipur. They concern the legality of certain orders of transfer in respect of certain employees of what was the roadways Department of the State Government. The employees came to be transferred by the impugned orders to other departments of the State government. The petitioners pray for appropriate writs, directions or orders in these matters.
(2.)IT will be convenient to narrate the facts with reference to Kailash Chandra jain's writ petition.
(3.)KAILASH Chandra Jain came to be appointed as a Conductor on 7-4-1960 in what was then the State Roadways Department of the Government of Rajas than. With effect from 1st October, 1964, Rajasthan State Roadways Corporation was constituted in pursuance of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The corporation was a body corporate under the Act. It appears that with the establishment of the Corporation the management of the Road Transport business hitherto run by the State Roadways Department was taken over by the corporation. So far as the employees of the State Roadways Department were concerned, by a Notification of the State Government dated 18-11-64, their services came to be placed at the disposal of the Corporation. I will have occasion to refer to that Notification a little later. The petitioner claims that after the transfer of the transport business of the State Roadways to the Corporation, he became an employee of the Corporation. This position is controverted by the respondents. According to the respondents the petitioner was only on deputation with the Corporation for a limited period and he never became a servant or employee of the Corporation. The petitioner continued to work as a Conductor with the Corporation for sometime after its formation. The petitioner like other employees was served with an option form and was asked to intimate whether he would like to serve the Corporation as its employee or would opt for the service of the State. The petitioner thought that the option sent to him suffered from vagueness. He, therefore, sought clarifications so that he could exercise his choice properly. According to the petitioner a fresh option form was issued to him by the State government, but the petitioner took the position that he had become the employee of the Corporation and thus there could be no question of his opting for state service as according to him there was no corresponding or analogous department of the State Government to winch the petitioner could be appointed. On 11-9-67 an order was served on the petitioner that he had been declared surplus by the General Manager Rajas than State Roadways Corporation and that he has been absorbed to the post of Surveillance Worker in the National Malaria eradication Prevention Unit, Banner against a vacancy and the petitioner was directed to report himself for duty at Barmer. In pursuance of the order dated 119-67, the petitioner was relieved from the post of Conductor. The grievance of the petitioner is that by the way the petitioner was dealt with the respondents sought to retrench him.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.